Author Topic: Is $100k a year a lot? Is it Fat FIRE? Used to think so but starting to wonder!  (Read 110101 times)

elysianfields

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Asia
FatFIRE is over $76,804
LeanFIRE is under $76,801

Multiply by 1.1 if you live in a HCOL area, 1.13 if it is a VHCOL and 0.7 of it is LCOL
/s
Yep! At $76,805 you are able to live in a ginormous mcmansion with a batcave filled with Ferraris. At $76,800 you are living in a beater van down by the river eating government cheese  ;-).

A climber friend and I were discussing this thread last night and his definition of Fat FIRE vs. Lean FIRE vs. Regular FIRE was basicly that if a person quit working to climb full time the lean person could afford to live the dirt bag life in a van, a tent, and a sleazy hostel eating ramen noodles and street food while trekking miles to their climbing site totally unaided. The fat FIRE person would be renting a luxury mountain side chalet with guides and porters ferry their gear everywhere and maybe a quick hello ride to the climb site and back where a nice meal in a warm chalet (and perhaps a masseuse) and a Jacuzzi spa would await them. The regular FIRE person would be staying at a chain motel and using a rental car to get around. Neither the lean FIRE or the regular FIRE person could afford the fat FIRE persons life without working longer. And the lean FIRE person couldn't afford the regular FIRE persons life without having to work longer. In the end they all get to spend their days climbing instead of being stuck at work but otherwise their lives are very different.

First, thanks for the good belly laugh @spartana !

I agree that we're arguing a lot about definitions, and your example illustrates the life differences.

When I was a kid, I thought $100,000 salary was an ungodly amount of money, and a million dollar stash made you incredibly rich.

Now my salary is above 100k and the kids talk about million-bajillions, so that must be the new standard.

Ultimately $100k/yr spending with a paid-off house, especially in a HCOL area is most definitely FatFIRE.

elysianfields

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Asia
[3] Disclaimer that a more recent study came out earlier this year using a different method of measuring happiness and finding that happiness continues to grow with log transformed income up to at least ~$500,000 year. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2016976118

Now you're talking, @maizefolk , bring on the morbidly obese FIRE!

How many logs do you have to transform to get your annual income up to $500k?  Is investment in timberland and the attendant log income the key to FIRE?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2021, 02:07:02 AM by elysianfields »

elysianfields

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Asia
Just saw a Forbes article from September 2019, discussing 13 ways to make your money last in retirement.  Nothing earthshaking, but there was one line that was basically "If you are using a 4% withdrawal rate, you need $7,500,000 saved to take out $300,000"   I'm not sure of the right medical term to describe that level of fire.

Crap, I am in trouble then, now I have to go back to work or move to Zimbabwe!  😉

A Foreign Service colleague used to carry around a $100 trillion (Zimbabwe dollar) note in his wallet from a stint in Harare.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
How many logs do you have to transform to get your annual income up to $500k?  Is investment in timberland and the attendant log income the key to FIRE?

Assuming we're talking forty year old black walnut, about five hundred a year.

One can grow about 100 trees an acre (plant 5-10x that but thin them as they mature) so a $500k annual income would only require planting and maintaining 200 acres (500/100 * 40)  of timberland .... and starting 40 years before you needed the income to start.

The good news is all the fresh air and exercise involved in trying to maintain 200 acres of forest and 20,000 trees of sufficient quality to fetch good prices should also be good for ones fitness (also generally correlated with happiness).

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
How many logs do you have to transform to get your annual income up to $500k?  Is investment in timberland and the attendant log income the key to FIRE?

Assuming we're talking forty year old black walnut, about five hundred a year.

One can grow about 100 trees an acre (plant 5-10x that but thin them as they mature) so a $500k annual income would only require planting and maintaining 200 acres (500/100 * 40)  of timberland .... and starting 40 years before you needed the income to start.

The good news is all the fresh air and exercise involved in trying to maintain 200 acres of forest and 20,000 trees of sufficient quality to fetch good prices should also be good for ones fitness (also generally correlated with happiness).

Hmm... does that include the cost of a third party contractor felling and rough-cutting the harvested trees?  What about the opportunity cost of purchasing and holding 200 acres (not to mention requisite taxes)? And maintaining 200 acres sounds suspiciously like work.
I might have to report this to the IRP for further investigation.
:-P

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Yes, there is a lot of unappreciated work and a lot of production costs involved in forestry for profit. For anyone thinking agroforestry is the path to easy riches, just remember:

Lumber doesn't grow on trees. 

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
« Last Edit: April 11, 2021, 07:41:30 AM by maizefolk »

DireWolf

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66

When I was a kid, I thought $100,000 salary was an ungodly amount of money, and a million dollar stash made you incredibly rich.

Since the Barenaked Ladies came out with the song “If I Had $1,000,000”, inflation has cut the value of that in nearly half. I was an adult when that came out, but $1M when I start elementary school would be over $5M in today’s dollars.

Alternatepriorities

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Alaska
  • Engineer, explorer, investor
    • Alternate Priorities
How many logs do you have to transform to get your annual income up to $500k?  Is investment in timberland and the attendant log income the key to FIRE?

Assuming we're talking forty year old black walnut, about five hundred a year.

One can grow about 100 trees an acre (plant 5-10x that but thin them as they mature) so a $500k annual income would only require planting and maintaining 200 acres (500/100 * 40)  of timberland .... and starting 40 years before you needed the income to start.

The good news is all the fresh air and exercise involved in trying to maintain 200 acres of forest and 20,000 trees of sufficient quality to fetch good prices should also be good for ones fitness (also generally correlated with happiness).

This is the most appealing non index based FIRE plan I've seen. As a bonus all the thinning should provide amazing wood for the actual fire. Unfortunately I don't think a single black walnut tree can be grown on 200 acres here, and there is just not the same demand for black spruce...

TheFrenchCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Yes, there is a lot of unappreciated work and a lot of production costs involved in forestry for profit. For anyone thinking agroforestry is the path to easy riches, just remember:

Lumber doesn't grow on trees. 

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
I love this!  My husband's family has a small tree farm, I'll have to pass this along.

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
How many logs do you have to transform to get your annual income up to $500k?  Is investment in timberland and the attendant log income the key to FIRE?

Assuming we're talking forty year old black walnut, about five hundred a year.

One can grow about 100 trees an acre (plant 5-10x that but thin them as they mature) so a $500k annual income would only require planting and maintaining 200 acres (500/100 * 40)  of timberland .... and starting 40 years before you needed the income to start.

The good news is all the fresh air and exercise involved in trying to maintain 200 acres of forest and 20,000 trees of sufficient quality to fetch good prices should also be good for ones fitness (also generally correlated with happiness).

This is the most appealing non index based FIRE plan I've seen. As a bonus all the thinning should provide amazing wood for the actual fire. Unfortunately I don't think a single black walnut tree can be grown on 200 acres here, and there is just not the same demand for black spruce...

I watched a youtube documentary with a man who way-back-when bought a nice bit of land in some NorCal mountains, raised a family with the sales of ~50,000 christmas trees per year that he grew on the land.  He built his own home (twice) and did lots of sculpture and all in all seemed to have had a very good life by living simply and building things.  Wish I could find it in my history. 


JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
How many logs do you have to transform to get your annual income up to $500k?  Is investment in timberland and the attendant log income the key to FIRE?

Assuming we're talking forty year old black walnut, about five hundred a year.

One can grow about 100 trees an acre (plant 5-10x that but thin them as they mature) so a $500k annual income would only require planting and maintaining 200 acres (500/100 * 40)  of timberland .... and starting 40 years before you needed the income to start.

The good news is all the fresh air and exercise involved in trying to maintain 200 acres of forest and 20,000 trees of sufficient quality to fetch good prices should also be good for ones fitness (also generally correlated with happiness).

This is the most appealing non index based FIRE plan I've seen. As a bonus all the thinning should provide amazing wood for the actual fire. Unfortunately I don't think a single black walnut tree can be grown on 200 acres here, and there is just not the same demand for black spruce...

I watched a youtube documentary with a man who way-back-when bought a nice bit of land in some NorCal mountains, raised a family with the sales of ~50,000 christmas trees per year that he grew on the land.  He built his own home (twice) and did lots of sculpture and all in all seemed to have had a very good life by living simply and building things.  Wish I could find it in my history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qcsWajivnI ?

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
....

I watched a youtube documentary with a man who way-back-when bought a nice bit of land in some NorCal mountains, raised a family with the sales of ~50,000 christmas trees per year that he grew on the land.  He built his own home (twice) and did lots of sculpture and all in all seemed to have had a very good life by living simply and building things.  Wish I could find it in my history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qcsWajivnI ?

Yep, if you are not going to spend the next 47 minutes and 28 seconds outside making the world a better place you probably should watch the video.

Arbitrage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
Got to say that I object somewhat to using median income for the specific city/suburb one lives in to classify whether or not one is fatFIRE or not.  If I move a few miles in various directions from my current house, I might be in a city of $50k median income, $90k median income, or $150k median income.  Choosing the ritzy location to live in doesn't somehow make you less fatFIRE just because your neighbors are also rich and spendy.

General cost-of-living adjustments for the area, sure.  Choosing a super-pricey suburb?  Nuh-uh. 

roomtempmayo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
How many logs do you have to transform to get your annual income up to $500k?  Is investment in timberland and the attendant log income the key to FIRE?

Assuming we're talking forty year old black walnut, about five hundred a year.

One can grow about 100 trees an acre (plant 5-10x that but thin them as they mature) so a $500k annual income would only require planting and maintaining 200 acres (500/100 * 40)  of timberland .... and starting 40 years before you needed the income to start.

The good news is all the fresh air and exercise involved in trying to maintain 200 acres of forest and 20,000 trees of sufficient quality to fetch good prices should also be good for ones fitness (also generally correlated with happiness).

This is the most appealing non index based FIRE plan I've seen. As a bonus all the thinning should provide amazing wood for the actual fire. Unfortunately I don't think a single black walnut tree can be grown on 200 acres here, and there is just not the same demand for black spruce...

So is the appropriate measure of Fat Fire cords or board feet?

Alternatepriorities

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Alaska
  • Engineer, explorer, investor
    • Alternate Priorities
So is the appropriate measure of Fat Fire cords or board feet?

I suspect it varies by zip code... Looking out at 8 cords of split firewood stacked in the yard as the snow flurries start does give me that fat and happy feeling... Because I only burn about half each winter.

By the River

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
I have relatives that live in the rural south.  I've heard from a couple of them that the way to save for a kid's education is to plant #x acres with pine trees when the pregnancy is announced and cut and sell it 18-19 years later.  Next time I see my cousin I will ask how many acres he planted. (His daughter ended up going to school partially on a softball scholarship so maybe some of the trees are still standing).

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
I have relatives that live in the rural south.  I've heard from a couple of them that the way to save for a kid's education is to plant #x acres with pine trees when the pregnancy is announced and cut and sell it 18-19 years later.  Next time I see my cousin I will ask how many acres he planted. (His daughter ended up going to school partially on a softball scholarship so maybe some of the trees are still standing).

Can that be incorporated into a 529 so you don't have to pay the lumber tax at harvest?

neo von retorch

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4918
  • Location: SE PA
    • Fi@retorch - personal finance tracking
You only need to plant pine trees if you're really sappy. At least that's what I in-fir'd.

FIRE Artist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Location: YEG
....

I watched a youtube documentary with a man who way-back-when bought a nice bit of land in some NorCal mountains, raised a family with the sales of ~50,000 christmas trees per year that he grew on the land.  He built his own home (twice) and did lots of sculpture and all in all seemed to have had a very good life by living simply and building things.  Wish I could find it in my history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qcsWajivnI ?

Yep, if you are not going to spend the next 47 minutes and 28 seconds outside making the world a better place you probably should watch the video.

The number of commercials breaks in the 47 minutes is kind of funny.

RWD

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6526
  • Location: Arizona
You only need to plant pine trees if you're really sappy. At least that's what I in-fir'd.

BussoV6

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 287
  • Location: Egoli
You only need to plant pine trees if you're really sappy. At least that's what I in-fir'd.


Excellent!!  :-)

roomtempmayo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
So is the appropriate measure of Fat Fire cords or board feet?

I suspect it varies by zip code... Looking out at 8 cords of split firewood stacked in the yard as the snow flurries start does give me that fat and happy feeling... Because I only burn about half each winter.

When a blizzard is setting in, no amount of money can match the security of a big stack of dry wood.

Alternatepriorities

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Alaska
  • Engineer, explorer, investor
    • Alternate Priorities
So is the appropriate measure of Fat Fire cords or board feet?

I suspect it varies by zip code... Looking out at 8 cords of split firewood stacked in the yard as the snow flurries start does give me that fat and happy feeling... Because I only burn about half each winter.

When a blizzard is setting in, no amount of money can match the security of a big stack of dry wood.
Amen!

elysianfields

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Asia
So is the appropriate measure of Fat Fire cords or board feet?

I suspect it varies by zip code... Looking out at 8 cords of split firewood stacked in the yard as the snow flurries start does give me that fat and happy feeling... Because I only burn about half each winter.

When a blizzard is setting in, no amount of money can match the security of a big stack of dry wood.
Amen!

Winter days are short and cold.
Wood is worth its weight in gold.

RedmondStash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1114
What the fucking fuck?

lol

@Malcat , I always enjoy your responses.

I think it's important not to get hung up on the fatFIRE/leanFIRE terminology, or compare yourself to anyone else, since we all have different financial needs.

So it's not about whether $100k is fatFIRE for someone else; it's about whether you have a big enough stash to support the lifestyle you want or require, potentially including hefty medical expenses and/or supporting (non-codependent) family members -- so it's not all about yachts or Ferraris or fun, but about your specific life.

For me, it's also about having a comfortable extra cushion in the stash -- not for more profligate spending, but so I can sleep at night. YMMV.

You have to figure out your own priorities, expenses, contingency plans, etc., and determine your own FIRE number that way. And remember that medical costs often increase as you age.

MaybeBabyMustache

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5351
    • My Wild Ride to FI
@jehovasfitness23 - yes. Bay Area

$40k/yr for property taxes? holeeee shit

That's a $3M property then. Most CA areas are 1-1.25% of purchase price. I've lived in the Bay Area since 1987, and there's no way anyone MUST have a $3M house here. That's a choice, not a requirement.

I'm guessing you're missing the part where I also said this:
"I'm going with this. Our expenses in FIRE will be at around around $100k, with 40% of that tied up in property taxes. Of course, we could live somewhere cheaper. Opting to pay that type of property taxes is a luxury choice in and of itself."

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
  • Location: Colorado
I keep wanting to post something in this thread, but then I click on it, and I just can't hear anything over the exploding volcanoes of cash in here. $25k/yr is povertyFIRE? Oh, boy. Somebody better tell HerbertDerp; I don't think he knows.

coppertop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
If you think you need $100k or more in retirement, you may be missing the entire point of this blog.

This. 

TheFrenchCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
If you think you need $100k or more in retirement, you may be missing the entire point of this blog.

This.
Agreed.  Especially since it's well over the median household income for the US, that puts your spending above that of the average consumer.  Not something I'd aspire to.

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
If you think you need $100k or more in retirement, you may be missing the entire point of this blog.

This.
Agreed.  Especially since it's well over the median household income for the US, that puts your spending above that of the average consumer.  Not something I'd aspire to.

The US is a big country, and it's best not to apply generalizations to the entire population. $100k in Loudoun County, VA is below the median income.

neo von retorch

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4918
  • Location: SE PA
    • Fi@retorch - personal finance tracking


Quote
Now, you know it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to be more frugal and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don't you?

Don't aim for median.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
I think if you've been earning at say 99 percentile income then it makes sense to aim for 90th percentile income in retirement and if you've been earning at 90th percentile income it makes sense to aim for at least 60th percentile income in retirement etc

That is to say, your individual circumstances dictate whether or not the 'median' is truly applicable to you in a relative sense.

The median weight is quite fat - the median IQ is 100 - we do not always follow medians when it comes to our own measuring sticks.


Alternatepriorities

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Alaska
  • Engineer, explorer, investor
    • Alternate Priorities
I think if you've been earning at say 99 percentile income then it makes sense to aim for 90th percentile income in retirement and if you've been earning at 90th percentile income it makes sense to aim for at least 60th percentile income in retirement etc

That is to say, your individual circumstances dictate whether or not the 'median' is truly applicable to you in a relative sense.

The median weight is quite fat - the median IQ is 100 - we do not always follow medians when it comes to our own measuring sticks.

What others are doing around me is much less significant than the number of other things I'd rather be doing with my time and how much I'd rather be doing them than work I'm doing to make money. I then weigh that against various levels of comfort to decide how much of my life I'm willing to trade for hedonic adaption rather then spend it working on something I really want to. I will admit that making more money has made hedonic adaptation a bit more tempting.

jeroly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
I know I'm getting in on this discussion on the late side, but having read through the thread, it seems like a bunch of points were either missed or glossed over. Since I'm at around the spending level being discussed, I thought I'd also throw in my perceptions around spending this amount in FIRE...

- The Reddit world has separate subreddits for ChubbyFIRE and FatFIRE.  ChubbyFIRE defines itself as for people having a stash of $2.5m-$5m, so at a 4% WR you're looking at a $100k-200k draw. FatFIRE agrees with a $5m threshold, i.e. a $200k/yr draw.

- I think that it makes a big difference whether you're looking at spending for one person, a couple, or a family to assess whether it's FatFIRE.  Spending $100k for a family may not be leanFIRE but doesn't feel fatFIRE either.

- It also will make a huge difference whether your housing is paid off or not.

- It will make a big difference whether you are able to arrange your income so that you qualify for ACA subsidies or not.

I have been FIREd for 21 years and have had remarkably level withdrawals from my accounts of around 90-100k/yr, partly from trying to keep under a 'safe' WR (not always safe, in retrospect, but back in the day I didn't know about SORR), partly by chance.  When I was spending that whilst paying a mortgage, paying for my SO's schooling, and for her living expenses as well, in a VHCOL city (NYC), it did not feel like FatFIRE (although I didn't feel like I was scrimping much either). When I was spending that whilst living alone in an HCOL city (DC - which has been transitioning to a VHCOL city in the past few years), it felt pretty fat - I could rent a fancy townhouse with more room than I neded, pay for a housecleaner, get theater subscriptions and go to whatever concerts or sporting events I wanted (not the priciest tickets of course), go out to eat whenever I wanted, subscribe to the print edition of the NY Times, give hefty gifts to my DD, buy all of the tech 'toys' I have wanted, and travel 1/3 of the year, without feeling like I had exceeded my target spending.

Current approximate spending (no facepunches neccesary - I know that it's crazy high)
Rent $40k
Healthcare $10k
Entertainment (includes dining out) $10k
Gifts $5k
Travel $15k
Media $1.5k
Food $3k
Utilities $4k
Car depreciation and expenses $3k
Clothes $0.5k
'Toys' (tech) $1.5k
Pet  $0.5k
Charity $5k
Miscellaneous $1k

I could see spending more (more car, more entertainment, more 'toys') but don't think I could really up it beyond $125k or so without being overwhelmed by my own piggishness - unless the extra spending was all going to gifts and charity. 
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 06:40:00 AM by jeroly »

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17376
^ none of that was glossed over

There are just some of us who feel like 100K isn't a lot of money to spend in retirement, and some of us who do.

The ones who don't cite all sorts of reasons for spending 100K, and the ones who do cite that just because there are reasons, doesn't mean it's not a lot of money. Even you yourself acknowledge that your numbers are "crazy high".

As far as I recall, no one in this thread has said that people aren't justified in spending 100K.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2832
I keep wanting to post something in this thread, but then I click on it, and I just can't hear anything over the exploding volcanoes of cash in here. $25k/yr is povertyFIRE? Oh, boy. Somebody better tell HerbertDerp; I don't think he knows.
That's because no one with a family can eat for $200/month. "You're all going to starve!!!" ;-).

While I'm in the "can and do easily live on a lot less then $25k" group, and it doesn't feel impoverished at all - especially with a fat stash to back it up. - I do realize that for those with mortgages or rents, kids, medical cost (even with the ACA subsidies you still have high OOP max unless you can go on Medicaid), and a whole host of other things might have a different experience the our sort. $100k though is crazy high for most people.

ETA haven't heard from the OP. Have you changed your mind a bit or do you still think $100k is a low FIRE number and $200k FatFI?


As  I said in OP I do think $100k is a lot.  Still not sure that it is fatFIRE but as this thread has discussed may be highly dependent on situation.   A single person in a LCOL (or most places probaly) it will probably be fatfire. I have a family of five with three teens, Ina variety of activities (food, gear,, clothing, and other consumes are quite high).   And all of this can also be very individual based on what's important - travel, well for 5 that adds up quick, single person not as much. 

Can people live on much much less - absolutely that may be surviving or living well but probably not fatFIRE.   

I disagree with the notion that median income for one's local/regional area doesn't matter.   It's a big country and a big world.   That doesn't mean that those aren't choices but the area income often dictates/influences prices (not to mention my high property taxes).

Take Europe for example. geographically equal in size to the US and has 50 countries (twice the population) and I doubt someone in Switzerland would say their income/spending is ridiculously fat bc you could always move to Serbia. It's a nonsense argument.

Anyway 100k is plenty for me but I don't consider it fatFIRE for our family size in our general location.   If I lived on flyover country then I might feel differently.

jeroly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
^ none of that was glossed over

There are just some of us who feel like 100K isn't a lot of money to spend in retirement, and some of us who do.

The ones who don't cite all sorts of reasons for spending 100K, and the ones who do cite that just because there are reasons, doesn't mean it's not a lot of money. Even you yourself acknowledge that your numbers are "crazy high".

As far as I recall, no one in this thread has said that people aren't justified in spending 100K.

I'll take your word on those not being glossed over; I didn't  come across the discussion of those points in five pages of posts but probably just missed it.

Additionally, in no way was I trying to justify my spending. I was bringing it up to flag that, based on my personal experience, $100k for an individual feels incredibly fat to me (and for two people, not so much). It more or less allows me to do whatever I want whenever I want with room to spare. Of course not wanting a talking astrolabe or an underwater lair helps ;-)

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17376
^ none of that was glossed over

There are just some of us who feel like 100K isn't a lot of money to spend in retirement, and some of us who do.

The ones who don't cite all sorts of reasons for spending 100K, and the ones who do cite that just because there are reasons, doesn't mean it's not a lot of money. Even you yourself acknowledge that your numbers are "crazy high".

As far as I recall, no one in this thread has said that people aren't justified in spending 100K.

I'll take your word on those not being glossed over; I didn't  come across the discussion of those points in five pages of posts but probably just missed it.

Additionally, in no way was I trying to justify my spending. I was bringing it up to flag that, based on my personal experience, $100k for an individual feels incredibly fat to me (and for two people, not so much). It more or less allows me to do whatever I want whenever I want with room to spare. Of course not wanting a talking astrolabe or an underwater lair helps ;-)

Hey, I'm not judging you or anyone who chooses to spend 100K in retirement. I don't think anyone else is either. Some are just saying that it's a lot of money, regardless of the reasons.

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 79
What all is included in the 100k?  I spend $21,000 a year for health insurance. Also taxes take a big bite, both real estate and federal. 

My wife and I could of coarse get by on $100k,  but thankfully we don’t have to.  I guess we are in the chubbyfire class.

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
In past I have seen a few threads circle back on themselves as the page count grows but never before have I seen a thread circle back around onto itself continuously at 100rpm for 4.5 pages right off the bat.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 08:02:35 AM by AlanStache »

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17376
In past I have seen a few threads circle back on themselves as the page count grows but never before have I seen a thread circle back around onto itself continuously at 100rpm for 4.5 pages straight right off the bat.

It's quite something.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17376
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Ha!

Arbitrage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Indeed.  The 'badassity' has left the building.  Not throwing stones, since I deserve plenty of facepunches myself, but it does seem like that part of the message isn't even on most people's radar anymore. 

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Indeed.  The 'badassity' has left the building.  Not throwing stones, since I deserve plenty of facepunches myself, but it does seem like that part of the message isn't even on most people's radar anymore.

It never was on my radar. I'm all for being conscious about spending and making efficient choices regarding money/time, but voluntary deprivation or anti-consumption or frugality solely for its own sake means nothing to me.

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Indeed.  The 'badassity' has left the building.  Not throwing stones, since I deserve plenty of facepunches myself, but it does seem like that part of the message isn't even on most people's radar anymore.

It never was on my radar. I'm all for being conscious about spending and making efficient choices regarding money/time, but voluntary deprivation or anti-consumption or frugality solely for its own sake means nothing to me.

Anti-consumption for it's own sake is important to me, so for me it was a draw to MMM in addition to the early retirement concept.  I have definitely become less interested due to the forum's more consumeristic trend in recent years.  People have also become very sensitive about face punches, which is just funny to see.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Indeed.  The 'badassity' has left the building.  Not throwing stones, since I deserve plenty of facepunches myself, but it does seem like that part of the message isn't even on most people's radar anymore.

It never was on my radar. I'm all for being conscious about spending and making efficient choices regarding money/time, but voluntary deprivation or anti-consumption or frugality solely for its own sake means nothing to me.

Anti-consumption for it's own sake is important to me, so for me it was a draw to MMM in addition to the early retirement concept.  I have definitely become less interested due to the forum's more consumeristic trend in recent years.  People have also become very sensitive about face punches, which is just funny to see.

I go further than that as well. FIRE is a side effect of my anti-consumption efforts, because low consumption = massive excess of money, even if you don't earn a lot. Just a question of what you want to direct the firehose at.

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Indeed.  The 'badassity' has left the building.  Not throwing stones, since I deserve plenty of facepunches myself, but it does seem like that part of the message isn't even on most people's radar anymore.

It never was on my radar. I'm all for being conscious about spending and making efficient choices regarding money/time, but voluntary deprivation or anti-consumption or frugality solely for its own sake means nothing to me.

This is a pretty common misconception on MMM.  He's not saying anything about deprivation or frugality for frugality's sake, but about optimization.  It's not deprivation if you're "depriving" yourself of things that aren't actually making you happy or that aren't worth the trade-offs.  And also people are pretty bad at guessing what will actually make them happy, especially in terms of spending.  All his articles are quick to point out that his lifestyle is fairly plush, and he's not being all that frugal. 

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
I'm fine with optimisation, but the tone I get from the blog posts is that there's a degree of wanting to live a minimalist life focussing on, for example, not driving where possible, and not otherwise consuming resources.

That is to say, the objective is to be frugal in absolute terms, not just relative to your income and time spend.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
I used to wonder why MMM didn’t spend more time in the forum he created

I don’t wonder anymore.

Indeed.  The 'badassity' has left the building.  Not throwing stones, since I deserve plenty of facepunches myself, but it does seem like that part of the message isn't even on most people's radar anymore.

It never was on my radar. I'm all for being conscious about spending and making efficient choices regarding money/time, but voluntary deprivation or anti-consumption or frugality solely for its own sake means nothing to me.

This is a pretty common misconception on MMM.  He's not saying anything about deprivation or frugality for frugality's sake, but about optimization.  It's not deprivation if you're "depriving" yourself of things that aren't actually making you happy or that aren't worth the trade-offs.  And also people are pretty bad at guessing what will actually make them happy, especially in terms of spending.  All his articles are quick to point out that his lifestyle is fairly plush, and he's not being all that frugal.

Indeed.  He's even argued passionately and repeatedly about how his approach is NOT about extreme frugality, and that his own life is an exploding volcano of luxury and excess.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/11/23/not-extreme-frugality/