Is $100k a year a lot? Is it Fat FIRE? Used to think so but starting to wonder!

[maizefolk]

Yes, I've missed this aspect of the forum as well. We used to spend a lot more time talking about and debating what spending actually lead to increased happiness/life satisfaction and what spending just lead one down a hedonic treadmill.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/22/what-is-hedonic-adaptation-and-how-can-it-turn-you-into-a-sukka/

[dougules]

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.

Well it's partly that that supposed "minimalism" might make you happier.  For instance driving has a lot of downsides for your happiness like lack of exercise and isolation from other people.  Then that aside, the spending may not be worth the effort it took to earn the money.   And your perception of what's making you happy may not be very well in tune with what actually is.     

The other undertone I get is that some forms of minimalism keep you from harming other people.  To take driving again, emissions do harm to others even if not you. 

And maybe there is a loss of the idea that some things may be worth it for high earners that wouldn't be for people on a limited budget, but just because you can easily afford it doesn't mean that a 300 sq m house will make you any happier than somebody that would have to stretch for it.  A lot of things are not really relative to your income in terms of how much they're worth it. 

But the point I'm trying to make is that I still think that you along with tons of other people are arguing against what hasn't actually been said. 

[Metalcat]

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.

That's not the impression I get from the blog, I got the message that people over estimate how hard and awful those options are and end up spending enormous amounts for marginal increases in benefit.

He has a specific form of lifestyle that he likes and talks about as a model for that type of thinking, but he is unapologetically living his best life and spending on whatever he has found to be worthwhile.

A nice car for a high earner who enjoys their job isn't a significant sacrifice, but for a middle class earner, it is. They have to make an ENORMOUS trade off to choose it. That's why that's an obvious target for most people.

The message is to question what you have been trained to believe is "worth it" and to understand the real life costs of the things you spend on.

I spend on plenty that Pete wouldn't, but I never once felt like his message wasn't for me.

That said, I don't do something stupid like come here and try and look for approval for the luxuries I believe are valuable to me. That's just silly, although it's becoming more and more the norm around here.

The reason face punches were a thing here was not to shame people for spending, but because the assumption was that they were looking for encouragement to question what they were spending on.

The default question here was always: why the fuck would you spend on that??? Look at this much cheaper alternative!
People came here for that. The point was to have our thinking challenged.

Through participating here I have spent less on some things, more on others, and ironically learned to care a lot less about saving.
This place has helped me challenge my own biases and assumptions and I feel more confident than ever about my ability to assess the value of spending in my life.

That's what's sad, to me, about the erosion of the facepunches here.  This place has basically become representative of the same, normal, middle class spending values of the rest of the world. There's still great advice, but it's no longer a place to really come and have your thinking and values challenged.

At least, that's what I see.
I feel like I could post just about any absurd spending idea and as long as I say "I can afford it", the general consensus will be "sounds great!"

Years ago I was often one of the few people in a thread saying something like that. Now it's the norm.

And yes, I'm acknowledging myself as part of the wave of high earners who benefitted from the facepunch culture but contributed to it's downfall.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

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.

(1) Well it's partly that that supposed "minimalism" might make you happier.  For instance driving has a lot of downsides for your happiness like lack of exercise and isolation from other people.  Then that aside, the spending may not be worth the effort it took to earn the money.   And your perception of what's making you happy may not be very well in tune with what actually is.     

(2) The other undertone I get is that some forms of minimalism keep you from harming other people.  To take driving again, emissions do harm to others even if not you. 

(3) And maybe there is a loss of the idea that some things may be worth it for high earners that wouldn't be for people on a limited budget, but just because you can easily afford it doesn't mean that a 300 sq m house will make you any happier than somebody that would have to stretch for it.  A lot of things are not really relative to your income in terms of how much they're worth it. 

But the point I'm trying to make is that I still think that you along with tons of other people are arguing against what hasn't actually been said.

I agree with your points 1 and 3 as being pretty uncontroversial in terms of personal finances. Point 2 is the bit of MMM that I find a little unattractive. The stuff about bike riding for instance - many people have good reasons (health issues) why they don't ride bikes, or it is simply not convenient a form of commute (for time or hygiene or dress code reasons). Or someone might simply like driving. For sure, it's important to be mindful of the hedonic treadmill and to examine what spending you do, but I suspect MMM would favour a bike over a yacht even all other things being equal - and I am not in favour of those sort of value judgments.

[dougules]

That's what's sad, to me, about the erosion of the facepunches here.  This place has basically become representative of the same, normal, middle class spending values of the rest of the world. There's still great advice, but it's no longer a place to really come and have your thinking and values challenged.

At least, that's what I see.
I feel like I could post just about any absurd spending idea and as long as I say "I can afford it", the general consensus will be "sounds great!"

Years ago I was often one of the few people in a thread saying something like that. Now it's the norm.

And yes, I'm acknowledging myself as part of the wave of high earners who benefitted from the facepunch culture but contributed to it's downfall.

To some extent it's sad that the optimization message and the hyperbole get watered down, but it's probably better that a watered down version reach a bunch of people than just have a handful of hardcore supporters. 

[ender]

That's what's sad, to me, about the erosion of the facepunches here.  This place has basically become representative of the same, normal, middle class spending values of the rest of the world. There's still great advice, but it's no longer a place to really come and have your thinking and values challenged.

At least, that's what I see.
I feel like I could post just about any absurd spending idea and as long as I say "I can afford it", the general consensus will be "sounds great!"

Years ago I was often one of the few people in a thread saying something like that. Now it's the norm.

And yes, I'm acknowledging myself as part of the wave of high earners who benefitted from the facepunch culture but contributed to it's downfall.

To some extent it's sad that the optimization message and the hyperbole get watered down, but it's probably better that a watered down version reach a bunch of people than just have a handful of hardcore supporters.

From my perspective, the challenge is that even the MMM blog itself went down this route.

I regularly tell people the early posts (like pre 2013 range) are good. The blog then was definitely a different style. I felt like the value proposition of the blog quickly drops off and honestly I'm not surprised the forum change dwith.

I'm not sure when or what contributed to it, but I felt the blog got a lot less focused on what I always felt was the core of MMM and the reason I found myself here. But, then again, you can only do so many blog posts about hedonistic adaption and what is realistically pretty basic math.

[dougules]

I agree with your points 1 and 3 as being pretty uncontroversial in terms of personal finances. Point 2 is the bit of MMM that I find a little unattractive. The stuff about bike riding for instance - many people have good reasons (health issues) why they don't ride bikes, or it is simply not convenient a form of commute (for time or hygiene or dress code reasons). Or someone might simply like driving. For sure, it's important to be mindful of the hedonic treadmill and to examine what spending you do, but I suspect MMM would favour a bike over a yacht even all other things being equal - and I am not in favour of those sort of value judgments.

The other thing I think gets missed so much is the hyperbole.  The MMM character is a caricature.  Obviously people are going to drive for some things.  I drive a decent amount because I have some health problems that get exacerbated by biking too much.   It's not an absolute, but overblown absolutes can make for a good writing style. 

As for why you don't have any desire to at least try to bring down spending on things that hurt other people, that's a little disappointing. 

[Metalcat]

That's what's sad, to me, about the erosion of the facepunches here.  This place has basically become representative of the same, normal, middle class spending values of the rest of the world. There's still great advice, but it's no longer a place to really come and have your thinking and values challenged.

At least, that's what I see.
I feel like I could post just about any absurd spending idea and as long as I say "I can afford it", the general consensus will be "sounds great!"

Years ago I was often one of the few people in a thread saying something like that. Now it's the norm.

And yes, I'm acknowledging myself as part of the wave of high earners who benefitted from the facepunch culture but contributed to it's downfall.

To some extent it's sad that the optimization message and the hyperbole get watered down, but it's probably better that a watered down version reach a bunch of people than just have a handful of hardcore supporters.

Sort of. Years ago when facepunches were still common, I saw many a poster staunchly stand their ground on certain spending choices. They were challenged, and rechallenged until it it was clear that their reasoning was sound.

This place has always been filled with highly intelligent people. Having thinking heavily challenged is not the same as having thinking overtly rejected.

I never once felt like this was the wrong place for me just because I wouldn't bend on certain spending decisions. Again though, I never asked for anyone's approval. I don't give a fuck what any of you think about what I choose to spend on, lol.

I did have my thinking on mortgage payoff challenged by B42, which totally changed my perspective on how I manage my debt, which hugely helped me, because I had a TON of debt that I was treating emotionally and not rationally.

I still chose a far more inefficient debt payoff strategy, but his relentless criticism of my thinking made my thinking better. By being critiqued, I was better able to see my own biases and make better decisions based on what I actually wanted.

At the end of the day, it's strangers on the internet, you take from them what you want and ignore the rest.

I haven't felt a culture of challenging middle class spending here for years. And we definitely lose something in losing that.

[ixtap]

One of the most important things I got from MMM was that "can I afford it" is the wrong question for most of us. How does this fit with my priorities and how does this affect my overall goals are much more important questions.

[tooqk4u22]

That's what's sad, to me, about the erosion of the facepunches here.  This place has basically become representative of the same, normal, middle class spending values of the rest of the world. There's still great advice, but it's no longer a place to really come and have your thinking and values challenged.

At least, that's what I see.
I feel like I could post just about any absurd spending idea and as long as I say "I can afford it", the general consensus will be "sounds great!"

Years ago I was often one of the few people in a thread saying something like that. Now it's the norm.

And yes, I'm acknowledging myself as part of the wave of high earners who benefitted from the facepunch culture but contributed to it's downfall.

To some extent it's sad that the optimization message and the hyperbole get watered down, but it's probably better that a watered down version reach a bunch of people than just have a handful of hardcore supporters.

From my perspective, the challenge is that even the MMM blog itself went down this route.

I regularly tell people the early posts (like pre 2013 range) are good. The blog then was definitely a different style. I felt like the value proposition of the blog quickly drops off and honestly I'm not surprised the forum change dwith.

I'm not sure when or what contributed to it, but I felt the blog got a lot less focused on what I always felt was the core of MMM and the reason I found myself here. But, then again, you can only do so many blog posts about hedonistic adaption and what is realistically pretty basic math.

People tend not to account for when this blog started.....coming out of the financial crisis, high joblessness, low savings, not to mention millenials trying to get going and struggling.  At that time the blog provided from practical advice and challenging views to be better.  The message was better received bc there was a hope element to it in desperate times and showed a way to live in such desperate times and possibly still save money. Fast forward, everybody got jobs, income and wealth grew substantially, and the largest cohort ever started feeling/believing that there is no down.  So everyone loosens the purse strings to their more natural forbthem level and then some.   Ie it's easy to live low and say it is not deprivation when your broke.


The blog itself trailed off horribly as it went from practical to preachy and the articles themselves were just bs covers for spending but not really spending.

Back on topic a bit, I did once compare the basic costs differences to live (similar size/value house) and his $25k was more like $45k in my area.  Property taxes were the big difference, but was surprised that utility rates, insurance and even ACA are like double where I am.   This was years ago but I am sure it still holds.   I only did this bc I couldn't quite figure it out so I actually researched it and called or got estimates online.   Sort of the challenge part for me.

[mizzourah2006]

I'm in on this late and it's been said multiple times, but I think it depends. For me personally I would put $100k of spend yearly in the fatFIRE camp. We currently spend ~ $70-$90k/yr (depending on if you count 529s as investments or just "future spend") and that's currently with 2 kids in daycare. I'd fully anticipate that FIRE for us once the kids are done with college and the mortgage is paid off would be in the $40-$60k range and that fatFIRE would be in the $100-$120k+ range. But I do understand that people live in other areas of the country where property taxes alone could push you to the $15-$25k/yr range.

I do think it's true that as this forum has grown upper middle class spend has become more of the norm. I think some of that is good for the forum and some of it is bad. For example, should I be face-punched for spending $3k on a mountain bike for a hobby I enjoy because I could presumably get a crappy $300 bike from Walmart or Target? On the other hand is a $12k bike necessary? I would be rather interested to see someone break down a $100k/yr budget that doesn't include a mortgage or kids schooling and rationalize how much of the spend isn't unnecessary. I guess it all comes back to your comparison group. If you are frugal compared to your immediate peers you may feel that you are not spending unnecessarily compared to them. I guess if that's how we do it I'm extremely frugal as most of my friends have HH incomes in the $200k+ range and we live in a relatively low cost of living area of the country. I'd venture to guess that we spend about 1/2 of what our closest friends spend per year.

[robartsd]

For example, should I be face-punched for spending $3k on a mountain bike for a hobby I enjoy because I could presumably get a crappy $300 bike from Walmart or Target? On the other hand is a $12k bike necessary?

A $300 BSO is indeed crappy, but there are decent options between $300 BSO and $3k. $3k is probably at least 2x what you need to spend to have a very enjoyable new mountain bike. Most appropriate way per MMM blog to acquire the bike for your hobby would be to spend about $500 for a decent used bike.

[mizzourah2006]

For example, should I be face-punched for spending $3k on a mountain bike for a hobby I enjoy because I could presumably get a crappy $300 bike from Walmart or Target? On the other hand is a $12k bike necessary?

A $300 BSO is indeed crappy, but there are decent options between $300 BSO and $3k. $3k is probably at least 2x what you need to spend to have a very enjoyable new mountain bike. Most appropriate way per MMM blog to acquire the bike for your hobby would be to spend about $500 for a decent used bike.

Indeed, but good luck finding a good $500 used mountain bike where I'm at. Most mountain bikes in my area are now going for what they sold for new a year ago. My $3k bike was a bit extravagant. If it makes you feel any better it's actually a $5.5k bike that I bought used for $3k. I can all but guarantee you I'd break a $500 bike on the trails I ride. My wife had an $800 bike and we had to upgrade her after she moved past the green trails. I ride a lot of black diamonds. I bet if I scoured the internet for a few more months I could have found a similar quality FS for $2.5k, but I guess the way I see it is that's like 6 hours of work for me, so why? Most decent FSs even used are in the $2-$5k range.

But on the other side of it I keep my house at 63 in the winter and at 80 in the summer and I eat almost every meal at home. I'm willing to spend a bit of money on things I value and skimp on things I don't. I only spent $1.2k on my gravel bike though :)

[robartsd]

Most mountain bikes in my area are now going for what they sold for new a year ago.

Yes, COVID gym closures created a demand shock on the used bike market.

[Serendip]

Related but unrelated--I've been listening to the audiobook The Wisdom of Frugality and from the get-go the author promises to examine (from a philosophical lens) both the pros & cons of frugality and the implied values associated with it (both positive and negative).

 One point that has stuck was the idea that if you ask anyone what the definition of greed is, it is likely to be someone who wants more than you do :)
I've enjoyed reading through this thread.

 I am a relatively low income earner compared to most on here so it's a fascinating peak into a whole other world.
(And no judgements, I don't mind what people spend their money on but it sure is interesting to hear!)

[Sid Hoffman]

One point that has stuck was the idea that if you ask anyone what the definition of greed is, it is likely to be someone who wants more than you do :)

Yup, I first became familiar with the general concept when I heard somebody talk of moral relativism. What suck with me all those years since is the same rough observation as yours: that people always put the line that divides right and wrong juuuust on the other side of what they themselves are doing. Everything *I* do is moral, but anybody who does things beyond what I myself do must be the bad people. Counts for consumption, taxes, moral issues, how many affairs in a marriage before it's considered cheating, and so on. People, by default, don't want independent authority. They want relative authority that is defined by their own desires.

I've mentioned it before but I think websites and forums like this one are great for having something independent from myself to evaluate my own decisions against. I've been frugal all my life, but once I started going down the FIRE path, this and a half dozen other websites really let me create a framework independent of my own upbringing and personal desires and influences. It's great to have outside authority, IMO.

[maizefolk]

Everything *I* do is moral, but anybody who does things beyond what I myself do must be the bad people. Counts for consumption, taxes, moral issues, how many affairs in a marriage before it's considered cheating, and so on.

Agreed on the concept, but yikes that last example is a new one for me!

[Morning Glory]

This thread is fucking hilarious. Definitely worth the long read for anyone coming in late.  And yes, it is ridiculously fat FIRE. Can you post your actual spending for last year? We can pick it apart and give you face punches.

I know that it is all relative. I just sold my big fancy house and now I can buy a smaller less fancy one for cash if I want to. The person who bought mine is paying all cash, so I am assuming that she had an even bigger and fancier house that she sold.  Our spending for the last four years averaged a bit under $40K per year for two adults and two kids, and that should go down once we move to a cheaper place.   Even the cheaper places I'm looking at are much fancier than the one I grew up in. I don't know what your frame of reference is like, if you think 100K isn't that much.

 I don't count the mortgage principal or the 529 contributions as spending since they don't change my net worth.

[nereo]

Everything *I* do is moral, but anybody who does things beyond what I myself do must be the bad people. Counts for consumption, taxes, moral issues, how many affairs in a marriage before it's considered cheating, and so on.

Agreed on the concept, but yikes that last example is a new one for me!

Wait, there;s a minimum number that’s greater than zero??

[Morning Glory]

Everything *I* do is moral, but anybody who does things beyond what I myself do must be the bad people. Counts for consumption, taxes, moral issues, how many affairs in a marriage before it's considered cheating, and so on.

Agreed on the concept, but yikes that last example is a new one for me!

Wait, there;s a minimum number that’s greater than zero??

An affair isn't necessarily cheating, if the other spouse is ok with it or the couple is separated.  It's not a number thing though.

[RWD]

Everything *I* do is moral, but anybody who does things beyond what I myself do must be the bad people. Counts for consumption, taxes, moral issues, how many affairs in a marriage before it's considered cheating, and so on.

Agreed on the concept, but yikes that last example is a new one for me!

Wait, there;s a minimum number that’s greater than zero??

An affair isn't necessarily cheating, if the other spouse is ok with it or the couple is separated.  It's not a number thing though.

That doesn't really even meet the definition of an affair then though.

[Sid Hoffman]

Wait, there;s a minimum number that’s greater than zero??

That's why I mention that it's an example of moral relativism. I'm divorced and I'll let you guess where my introduction to "OK but it's not actually cheating at this point" came from.

[Morning Glory]

Everything *I* do is moral, but anybody who does things beyond what I myself do must be the bad people. Counts for consumption, taxes, moral issues, how many affairs in a marriage before it's considered cheating, and so on.

Agreed on the concept, but yikes that last example is a new one for me!

Wait, there;s a minimum number that’s greater than zero??

An affair isn't necessarily cheating, if the other spouse is ok with it or the couple is separated.  It's not a number thing though.

That doesn't really even meet the definition of an affair then though.

Any short term relationship can be called an affair, whether or not one is already in a committed relationship.  That usage is a bit outdated though. We didn't used to say "hookups" or "friends with benefits", it was all just affairs unless you were exclusively dating or married. I'm not even that old but I read a ton of romance novels as a preteen.

[maizefolk]

Any short term relationship can be called an affair, whether or not one is already in a committed relationship.  That usage is a bit outdated though. We didn't used to say "hookups" or "friends with benefits", it was all just affairs unless you were exclusively dating or married. I'm not even that old but I read a ton of romance novels as a preteen.

Huh. Definitely a change of meaning (or at least two different shades of meaning existing in slightly different flavors of english).

As I use the term "affair" specifically implies a clandestine relationship and doesn't say anything about whether one or both parties are in a committed relationship with someone else. So two people could have an office affair, even if neither was in a committed relationship so long as they were keeping the relationship secret from everyone else. But a person in an open marriage having sex with someone they aren't married to wouldn't be something I'd apply the word "affair" to.

Anyway, good to know it can mean something different. Thanks!

[tooqk4u22]

Any short term relationship can be called an affair, whether or not one is already in a committed relationship.  That usage is a bit outdated though. We didn't used to say "hookups" or "friends with benefits", it was all just affairs unless you were exclusively dating or married. I'm not even that old but I read a ton of romance novels as a preteen.

Huh. Definitely a change of meaning (or at least two different shades of meaning existing in slightly different flavors of english).

As I use the term "affair" specifically implies a clandestine relationship and doesn't say anything about whether one or both parties are in a committed relationship with someone else. So two people could have an office affair, even if neither was in a committed relationship so long as they were keeping the relationship secret from everyone else. But a person in an open marriage having sex with someone they aren't married to wouldn't be something I'd apply the word "affair" to.

Actual definition...

a sexual relationship between two people, one or both of whom are married to someone else

[maizefolk]

English words mean whatever english speakers use them to mean.

As a random example of the usage I describe by someone that isn't me, I refer to any of half a dozen episodes of "Better Off Ted" which discuss the "one office affair rule" as a limitation the characters place on how many people they can sleep with at the office, despite all the characters in questions not being married or in committed relationships.

[Morning Glory]

So an open marriage situation is an affair, but it is not cheating, nor particularly clandestine.

I was partly wrong.  "Affair" just sounds sexier than "hookup" though. Maybe that's all the romance novels in my past talking...It's not like they are the best representations of the English language. See "aquiline."

[Morning Glory]

English words mean whatever english speakers use them to mean.

As a random example of the usage I describe by someone that isn't me, I refer to any of half a dozen episodes of "Better Off Ted" which discuss the "one office affair rule" as a limitation the characters place on how many people they can sleep with at the office, despite all the characters in questions not being married or in committed relationships.

I've never seen that show, but I will bet that rule goes out the window as soon as the writers get bored. I bet they put it in there so they can have the characters talk about breaking it later.

[tooqk4u22]

Setting aside the marriage aspect, which I think is too limiting, bottom line is that an affair is having a sexual or emotional relationship with someone other than the person you are committed to.   I.e. if the person you are in a relationship with and are committed to (aside from stalkers)  would be hurt by the action then it is an affair.  It's not a positive and makes one a very horrible person.

An open marriage is not an affair.

And yes there is a more modern aspect of affair that is confused with dating.....not an affair

[Morning Glory]

Setting aside the marriage aspect, which I think is too limiting, bottom line is that an affair is having a sexual or emotional relationship with someone other than the person you are committed to.   I.e. if the person you are in a relationship with and are committed to (aside from stalkers)  would be hurt by the action then it is an affair.  It's not a positive and makes one a very horrible person.

An open marriage is not an affair.

And yes there is a more modern aspect of affair that is confused with dating.....not an affair

I think your usage is more modern than mine. In the past, any sexual relationship outside of marriage was necessarily clandestine, so it counted as an affair.

Emotional is trickier. On one hand, you are having an emotional affair. On the other hand, your partner is a controlling jerk who doesn't want you to have friends. Really hard to differentiate.

[charis]

Setting aside the marriage aspect, which I think is too limiting, bottom line is that an affair is having a sexual or emotional relationship with someone other than the person you are committed to.   I.e. if the person you are in a relationship with and are committed to (aside from stalkers)  would be hurt by the action then it is an affair.  It's not a positive and makes one a very horrible person.

An open marriage is not an affair.

And yes there is a more modern aspect of affair that is confused with dating.....not an affair

The most common understanding of an affair is cheating.  But another very common and enduring use of the term, best exemplified in the phrase "love affair," is more broad and can refer to a variety of ill-conceived romantic couplings, whether it's a fling, office hook up, or extramarital type relationship.

[tooqk4u22]

Do affairs fall under, at, or above $100k spend?

[ender]

Do affairs fall under, at, or above $100k spend?

Doesn't this depend on how much you pay for the affair?

[Morning Glory]

Do affairs fall under, at, or above $100k spend?

Doesn't this depend on how much you pay for the affair?

So many variables the range is huge and unpredictable. Anywhere from $0 into the millions. Kind of like long term care. Better buy an island just to be safe.

[nereo]

Do affairs fall under, at, or above $100k spend?

Doesn't this depend on how much you pay for the affair?

So many variables the range is huge and unpredictable. Anywhere from $0 into the millions. Kind of like long term care. Better buy an island just to be safe.

This is what I find so frustrating (the lack of any good standards).  I’m trying to incorporate how large my ‘stache should be using a 4% WR, but I’m not finding a lot of consensus on 1) the future cost of healthcare and 2) the annual cost of affairs. Any guidance is appreciated
/s

[Morning Glory]

Do affairs fall under, at, or above $100k spend?

Doesn't this depend on how much you pay for the affair?

So many variables the range is huge and unpredictable. Anywhere from $0 into the millions. Kind of like long term care. Better buy an island just to be safe.

This is what I find so frustrating (the lack of any good standards).  I’m trying to incorporate how large my ‘stache should be using a 4% WR, but I’m not finding a lot of consensus on 1) the future cost of healthcare and 2) the annual cost of affairs. Any guidance is appreciated
/s

I'm surprised that there's no insurance for that. Of course they would have all kinds of rules about prior approvals and preexisting affairs.

[ice_beard]

That's our annual budget for FIRE give or take a bit.  We are both nurses and live a pretty un-extravagant lifestyle.  I do not consider it Fat Fire for the Bay Area.  It's more like middle class FIRE.  If I were to move back to my home town in rural Southern Indiana, it would absolutely be mega FAT FIRE.  But we don't want to do that.     
This statement is entirely dependent upon specific situations. 

[tooqk4u22]

Do affairs fall under, at, or above $100k spend?

Doesn't this depend on how much you pay for the affair?

So many variables the range is huge and unpredictable. Anywhere from $0 into the millions. Kind of like long term care. Better buy an island just to be safe.

This is what I find so frustrating (the lack of any good standards).  I’m trying to incorporate how large my ‘stache should be using a 4% WR, but I’m not finding a lot of consensus on 1) the future cost of healthcare and 2) the annual cost of affairs. Any guidance is appreciated
/s

I'm surprised that there's no insurance for that. Of course they would have all kinds of rules about prior approvals and preexisting affairs.

Get congress to approve a new ACA (Affair Care Act)...first one is on the govt.....why not, everything else is at this point!

[marty998]

Do affairs fall under, at, or above $100k spend?

Doesn't this depend on how much you pay for the affair?

The answer to this lies somewhere along the paramour-skank scale.

Affairs are one thing that seems to be common to all classes.

[Metalcat]

That's our annual budget for FIRE give or take a bit.  We are both nurses and live a pretty un-extravagant lifestyle.  I do not consider it Fat Fire for the Bay Area.  It's more like middle class FIRE.  If I were to move back to my home town in rural Southern Indiana, it would absolutely be mega FAT FIRE.  But we don't want to do that.     
This statement is entirely dependent upon specific situations.

Oh, okay, cool, we'll jump right back into the merry-go-round of the original debate. I have insomnia, so why not?

You say Fat FIRE is location dependent, I say being able to afford to live in a VHCOL is a hell of a luxury. You said it yourself, you could live elsewhere, you just don't want to.

How is the luxury of spending on a location fundamentally different than the luxury of spending on something like travel or any other lifestyle choice that results in me spending much more than the average person can afford?

Let me put it this way, let's say I retire with several million and I decide that because I can afford it, that I'm going to go live in Paris, one of the most expensive cities in the world. I live what an American would consider a "normal middle class" lifestyle, which in Paris would cost an absolute fortune.

Is my obscenely expensive Parisian life not considered Fat FIRE just because Paris is VVVHCOL?

Location in retirement is usually optional, so it's a luxury. I totally respect why you might opt for that luxury, you will get no judgement from me. I hold no judgement of anyone who spends 6 figures in retirement, I just refuse to subscribe to a narrative that a lot of money stops being a lot of money just because you choose to retire somewhere that's crazy expensive.

Also, yet again, we're talking post retirement spending, so at some point you won't have a mortgage, no commute to work, etc, etc.

I'm not familiar with the Bay Area, but does 100K of spending without a mortgage or commute costs really only buy a modest lifestyle?

Like, does a head of cabbage cost $12 or something?

[ice_beard]

Yeah, I actually don't want to spend the time to read all these pages, so apologies if I am late to this discussion. 

Funny you ask about the cabbage... I happened to buy a head of green cabbage this morning, so I have very current rates on them...  Green cabbage was $0.99/lb and green peppers were $1.69/lb.  I also picked up what I consider a very good value, the grocery store sells these pre-made Hoagies for $6.99, so out the door with these three items for $9.83 and this is at what many would consider a higher end grocery shopping experience (Lunardi's for those in the know). 

I'm not going to go into the details of our spending, but 96k/yr is 8k month and automatically, half to more than that is mortgage/property taxes if you own a home here in a somewhat desirable region.  It can easily be half that if you have owned a long time, we have not.  And it's going to be a lot more for those who are buying into the current RE mania that is going on. 

Edited:
Well, what the hell, here are our budget categories from Mint

Home: Mortgage/taxes/other expenditures on the home: $4000
Auto/Transport: $500 (insurance, maint, fuel, no payments)
Utilities $300
Entertainment $50
Groceries/Restaurants $600
Gym/Fitness $200
Pets $150
"Shopping" (everything else) $200
Travel $600
Total
$6500 and I'd say our average is usually around 7k, which is 84/year.

[maizefolk]

FWIW, I live in a city that an internet cost of living comparison calculator says is 1/3 the cost of San Francisco and green cabbage is $0.89/lb.

[Morning Glory]

There is a dude with ten million in the bay area who claims he only spends 24k per year. I got the vibe that he was maybe on here looking for women. He didn't want to pay any tax for his affair care plan. Hope he has health insurance. I believe he is actually in the bay area because he mentioned the dim sum, which is something I remember vividly from my one visit to San Francisco at age 8.

How much dim sum can $100k buy? I have $70 worth of Bitcoin I got for free that I was saving for my retirement pizza party, but now dim sum sounds better. I'll have to trade it for ethereum if I want dim sum.

Also what Malcat said. And I don't mean any harm to those who have actually suffered from affairs.

[ice_beard]

There is a dude with ten million in the bay area who claims he only spends 24k per year.

You aboslutely could do this.  I have a friend who lives on a boat in the Berkeley Harbor.  His slip fees are like $500/month and he gets access to bathrooms and a shower.  If he would finish a degree instead of talking about finishing degrees, or even just develop some marketable skill, he could be living in a very profitable fashion.  Walking distance to the Berkeley Bowl, annual access to Cal Sailing Club, etc.  Alas, he prefers to do something...else.  In keeping with the current drift of this thread.... he claims of have even had affairs whilst captive to his less than optimal living situation (!)

[Metalcat]

Yeah, I actually don't want to spend the time to read all these pages, so apologies if I am late to this discussion. 

Funny you ask about the cabbage... I happened to buy a head of green cabbage this morning, so I have very current rates on them...  Green cabbage was $0.99/lb and green peppers were $1.69/lb.  I also picked up what I consider a very good value, the grocery store sells these pre-made Hoagies for $6.99, so out the door with these three items for $9.83 and this is at what many would consider a higher end grocery shopping experience (Lunardi's for those in the know). 

I'm not going to go into the details of our spending, but 96k/yr is 8k month and automatically, half to more than that is mortgage/property taxes if you own a home here in a somewhat desirable region.  It can easily be half that if you have owned a long time, we have not.  And it's going to be a lot more for those who are buying into the current RE mania that is going on. 

Edited:
Well, what the hell, here are our budget categories from Mint

Home: Mortgage/taxes/other expenditures on the home: $4000
Auto/Transport: $500 (insurance, maint, fuel, no payments)
Utilities $300
Entertainment $50
Groceries/Restaurants $600
Gym/Fitness $200
Pets $150
"Shopping" (everything else) $200
Travel $600
Total
$6500 and I'd say our average is usually around 7k, which is 84/year.

So without your mortgagea and commuting costs, your spending is well under 100K, but quite high on restaurants, which is a luxury item anyway. So all of this supports the point I was making.

Cool.

[ice_beard]

So without your mortgagea and commuting costs, your spending is well under 100K, but quite high on restaurants, which is a luxury item anyway. So all of this supports the point I was making.

Cool.

Most of that is Costco spending...  but I guess if $8 burritos and $10 MOD Pizza once or twice a month is luxurious, you got me!  ("Servant, feed me another grape!")

[Metalcat]

So without your mortgagea and commuting costs, your spending is well under 100K, but quite high on restaurants, which is a luxury item anyway. So all of this supports the point I was making.

Cool.

Most of that is Costco spending...  but I guess if $8 burritos and $10 MOD Pizza once or twice a month is luxurious, you got me!  ("Servant, feed me another grape!")

Lol, oops, I misread it as spending $600 on just restaurants, not groceries and restaurants. Totally my mistake.

[Morning Glory]

There is a dude with ten million in the bay area who claims he only spends 24k per year.

You aboslutely could do this.  I have a friend who lives on a boat in the Berkeley Harbor.  His slip fees are like $500/month and he gets access to bathrooms and a shower.  If he would finish a degree instead of talking about finishing degrees, or even just develop some marketable skill, he could be living in a very profitable fashion.  Walking distance to the Berkeley Bowl, annual access to Cal Sailing Club, etc.  Alas, he prefers to do something...else.  In keeping with the current drift of this thread.... he claims of have even had affairs whilst captive to his less than optimal living situation (!)

TBH I could have finished my doctorate a few times over in the time I've spent on this forum. The boat life sounds pretty good actually.

[RWD]

There is a dude with ten million in the bay area who claims he only spends 24k per year.

You aboslutely could do this.  I have a friend who lives on a boat in the Berkeley Harbor.  His slip fees are like $500/month and he gets access to bathrooms and a shower.  If he would finish a degree instead of talking about finishing degrees, or even just develop some marketable skill, he could be living in a very profitable fashion.  Walking distance to the Berkeley Bowl, annual access to Cal Sailing Club, etc.  Alas, he prefers to do something...else.  In keeping with the current drift of this thread.... he claims of have even had affairs whilst captive to his less than optimal living situation (!)

TBH I could have finished my doctorate a few times over in the time I've spent on this forum. The boat life sounds pretty good actually.

Multiple doctorate degrees in 1,833 hours, wow!

[ice_beard]

There is a dude with ten million in the bay area who claims he only spends 24k per year.

You aboslutely could do this.  I have a friend who lives on a boat in the Berkeley Harbor.  His slip fees are like $500/month and he gets access to bathrooms and a shower.  If he would finish a degree instead of talking about finishing degrees, or even just develop some marketable skill, he could be living in a very profitable fashion.  Walking distance to the Berkeley Bowl, annual access to Cal Sailing Club, etc.  Alas, he prefers to do something...else.  In keeping with the current drift of this thread.... he claims of have even had affairs whilst captive to his less than optimal living situation (!)

TBH I could have finished my doctorate a few times over in the time I've spent on this forum. The boat life sounds pretty good actually.

I asked some friends on a skiing forum about living on a boat in the Bay Area...  one guy recommended I take a cold shower and start ripping up $100 bills for a similar experience.  Another remarked on the impossibility of getting your wet gear dry while living on a damp sailboat in the winter months.  Seeing as how it only seems to rain a handful of days in the winter here anymore, this might not be a terrible option.  Another friend legitimately lived out of a box van for two years before it was the hip thing to do.  He only worked 2 days a week and spent the rest of his time in Yosemite rock climbing.  If you have a gym membership and can string out enough places to spend time during the day and have minimal possessions, you can make that work.  He's softened up now and shares a 1 bdrm apt with his gf.