Marriage is a FIRE no-brainer. What about kids?

[Ron Scott]

The simple math behind 2 can live as cheaply as 1 PLUS the benefits of having 2 incomes, even for a few years, seems to make marriage THE no-brainer decision for the FIRE-inclined. At least one of you can FIRE sooner, living off the other’s income. And since almost all of any second income can drop to the bottom line, both partners have a better chance at FIRE.

The math doesn’t work great with kids. People are biologically and socially motivated to have them but they seem like an extravagance.

Is the traditional married-as-stay at home-parent is the best of both worlds?

[2Cent]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision. I would say financially marriage is a huge liability as you are basically giving someone access to everything you have. There are many way simpler arrangements to share living expenses, like roommates.

Kids are nothing but cost. Maybe when you're old they can help a bit, but with the money you save you could hire all the care you need. The days that kids where an investment are long gone.

Of course kids and marriage are some of the things that can make life worth living, so that should be your main concern. But indeed the high cost of starting a family is the main reasons the developed world is seeing a huge decline in births. Governments should really step in, because as a society having kids IS an economic necessity.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Sure. Marrying DW along with being a great decision for numerous other reasons was probably the single best financial decision I've made because of our like mindedness in being frugal, helping each other out in areas the other struggles with, saving money by shared living spaces, etc.

It can also be terrible for FIRE as I've seen in cases where one side or the other is super spendy. It is a great situation for building wealth if things are good and people are on the same page.

[Omy]

Sure. Marrying DW along with being a great decision for numerous other reasons was probably the single best financial decision I've made because of our like mindedness in being frugal, helping each other out in areas the other struggles with, saving money by shared living spaces, etc.

It can also be terrible for FIRE as I've seen in cases where one side or the other is super spendy. It is a great situation for building wealth if things are good and people are on the same page.

Ditto. I have been married to both types. I motivated the spendy (now ex) husband to FIRE, but it was like pulling teeth. Eventually we couldn't overcome our differences and we divorced and divided by 2 (which is NOT conducive to FIRE.)

Current husband and I are very compatible and once I started talking about FIRE (which he hadn't really heard of), we were off and running. My experience with ex definitely inspired me to save more (most would say too much more) for the second FIRE attempt, but it happened relatively quickly because of our DINK status.

It would have been much tougher to FIRE if we had kids. We would have made more expensive decisions regarding housing, food, utilities, cars, etc. while raising children. There would have been day care, braces, activities, more medical issues, and college to pay for. Kids likely would have delayed retirement by several years for us.

[Metalcat]

Sure, we can call having kids a luxury, we can call anything beyond basic survival a luxury. Luxuries are either worth it to people or they aren't, and biology has some pretty strong things to say about how worthwhile children are.

Of course having kids is an expensive extravagance, but very, very few people will choose to have a life without kids just because of the cost. Most of the people I know who cite cost as a reason they don't have kids were already on the fence about it to begin with.

With all of the people I've seen spend hundreds of thousands of dollars they can't afford on fertility treatments, the drive to have kids is not a rational one. Some people just need to have kids, and they'll do whatever it takes to have them. For them, any cost is worthwhile.

The drive to have kids varies though. In some it's an unquestionable calling, in others it's a consideration, and in a few, it's totally absent.

Likewise people don't generally pair up because it's financially beneficial. I would much, much rather pay a premium to be single than partner up with someone if I didn't already want to partner with them. By your logic, polyamory would be even smarter, but I have zero interest in that, as would generational homes and there's no fucking way I'm doing that either.

Most of our lifestyle decisions aren't made according to what is financially optimal. We want what we want and then the financially minded among is try to find ways to get what we want in financially optimal ways.

If we were all primarily financially driven, we would all live in communal housing and pooling resources like vehicles and tools and eat cafeteria style in sparse, prison-like accommodations.

But we don't.

Instead we have a lot of couples living in detached homes that are much bigger than they need with lawns and gardens that serve little purpose other than to suit personal preference, owning multiple private vehicles even though they could probably share one with some coordination and use of bikes/public transport, and traveling to visit their parents instead of moving them into their big homes.

I personally chose not to have kids and the financial element never once factored into my decision. I just don't want them. However, I have a very hard time living without multiple pets, which is absolutely not financially optimal. And like the folks who can't really afford fertility treatments, I was paying thousands for vet care as a broke student up to my eyeballs in debt.

Pets are certainly a luxury, and you can argue that children should be considered a luxury, but no "logical" explanation is going to displace the extremely normal human instinct to reproduce, or have pets for that matter, hence why even homeless people keep pets.

I could be much, much richer if I just lived a completely different life that I don't want to live. But I'm not going to do that. Same with people who strongly want kids.

[iris lily]

Sure. Marrying DW along with being a great decision for numerous other reasons was probably the single best financial decision I've made because of our like mindedness in being frugal, helping each other out in areas the other struggles with, saving money by shared living spaces, etc.

It can also be terrible for FIRE as I've seen in cases where one side or the other is super spendy. It is a great situation for building wealth if things are good and people are on the same page.

Agreed. We got to fat fire by working modest middle-class jobs seldom having household income above $100,000, but sharing the value of frugality. No kids.

It’s a good formula for financial freedom.

One of the lessons of the book “the millionaire next door”  is get married stay married. The second spouse does not even have  to be a working spouse, but shared values of frugality are key.

[ixtap]

I have no doubt we are where we are because we didn't have kids. The thing is, neither of us wanted them. Some people are so driven to have kids that their lives are miserable without them. What would be the point of FIRE for them?

No kids was absolutely the right choice for us. That doesn't mean I think it is the right thing for everyone.

[Metalcat]

Sure. Marrying DW along with being a great decision for numerous other reasons was probably the single best financial decision I've made because of our like mindedness in being frugal, helping each other out in areas the other struggles with, saving money by shared living spaces, etc.

It can also be terrible for FIRE as I've seen in cases where one side or the other is super spendy. It is a great situation for building wealth if things are good and people are on the same page.

Agreed. We got to fat fire by working modest middle-class jobs seldom having household income above $100,000, but sharing the value of frugality. No kids.

It’s a good formula for financial freedom.

One of the lessons of the book “the millionaire next door”  is get married stay married. The second spouse does not even have  to be a working spouse, but shared values of frugality are key.

Too bad so many of us don't have the capacity to find the perfect partner in our 20s and often end up not being able to follow this advice.

Tons of people do the "get married" step, but staying married is actually a terrible idea for a lot of them.

ETA: also, getting divorced is sometimes the best financial decision someone can make. So the "get married and stay married" advice is actually advice to "never make a mistake on choosing your partner," which is pretty unrealistic.

[StarBright]

Is the traditional married-as-stay at home-parent is the best of both worlds?

Eventually, maybe for some folks? But awfully hard to get there without two incomes at some point. And that is assuming no splitting assets down the road via divorce.

I'd venture the way to FIRE and have kids and is to get almost to FIRE before you have them.

As a woman parent, it still feels like a risky proposition. Better to have very solid assets of your own before thinking of transitioning to a more traditional styled household. The data on re-entering the professional class workforce after an extended break is not super encouraging.

[Ron Scott]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

[MoseyingAlong]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

[StarBright]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

^ this is my household.

We are within spitting range of our initial RE number. But my spouse has no interest in leaving the workforce and ALSO doesn't want to spend down the stache. Once we can live off my spouse's income I am pulling the plug on working.

Since I've been working almost 30 years to their 12, I'm not even going to feel bad about calling it whatever I want to :) We will be living off my spouse's income for the day to day but I will 100% be FIRED.

I also think the stay at home parent/spouse thing is more analogous to coastFIRE, for what it is worth.

[Cassie]

I agree with metalcat that no one chooses not to have children because of money, the environment, etc. Those people didn’t really want kids in the first place.  I always knew that I wanted 3 kids. They are one of the greatest joys of my life. My oldest son and his wife are local and I see them weekly.

My youngest lives in Vietnam but he calls frequently and visits every few years. When I got divorced he came home to remodel the condo I bought and lived with me for a year. It was a great way to transition and it was his idea not mine.  Undoubtedly I would have more money without my 2 little dogs but they are one of the things that make life worth living. I stayed home until my kids were in school. I wasn’t fired but we were living off one income.

[Ron Scott]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

[Sibley]

Marriage and children are not financial decisions. There are financial impacts and should be considered, but if you're making decisions solely or primarily based on the money then you're doing life wrong.

You don't get married unless you want to spend your life with that person. If you want to split housing costs, get a roommate.

[slappy]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

No. Because they are still relying on the the other spouse's income.

[Dr. Pepper]

FIRE is definitely impacted by having kids. But lots of other things will do that as well. I think we all have to decide what gives us meaning, for me having kids outweighs the chance I could have retired sooner. I just can't put a price on the experiences I have shared with my kids. The baby phase was not my favorite especially when I was a surgical resident, but now that they are older with personalities and creativity, it's very fun. Just one recent example, before I deployed I went on a school daddy daughter dance with my 6yo. Having her tell me it was the greatest day of her life and meaning it because she is only 6, very simple but very profound for me.

[Ron Scott]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

No. Because they are still relying on the the other spouse's income.

So the criterion is reliance on working income? So anyone who retires but then needs to rely on  PT employment or the “side-hustle” is NO LONGER RETIRED?

And—important—when the single-income couple hits their FI number, then the non-working spouse immediately becomes FIRE?

The logic for not calling non-working spouses FIRE keeps failing. We can disagree, but they’re FIREd in my book.

[wageslave23]

I would say it's much easier for a single person to FIRE.  All of our expenses are at least double what they would be for me as a single person. The only exception being housing which is only about 25% of our expenses.  And even housing is about 50% more as a married couple compared to if I was single.  Food, clothing, healthcare, entertainment, transportation, hygiene products are all double or more. Plus, I make more money and would be more frugal if it was solely up to me. Getting married only helps if you marry someone as frugal or more so than yourself who also makes at least or more than you. As a Mustachian, that's like a unicorn finding another unicorn in the wild. And yes, kids make FIRE more difficult, but I'd guess that most FIREes have kids, so it's not that much more difficult.  For myself, getting married pushed my FIRE age from 38 to 39. Kids pushed it from 39 to 41. Something like 90% of people have kids by the age of 50. So most people aren't going to choose to not have kids so they can retire a couple years sooner.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

No. Because they are still relying on the the other spouse's income.

So the criterion is reliance on working income? So anyone who retires but then needs to rely on  PT employment or the “side-hustle” is NO LONGER RETIRED?

And—important—when the single-income couple hits their FI number, then the non-working spouse immediately becomes FIRE?

The logic for not calling non-working spouses FIRE keeps failing. We can disagree, but they’re FIREd in my book.

Let's say you have SAHP who never worked outside the home. Are they retired at 21 or whenever they get married? What have they retired from?

[iris lily]

Sure. Marrying DW along with being a great decision for numerous other reasons was probably the single best financial decision I've made because of our like mindedness in being frugal, helping each other out in areas the other struggles with, saving money by shared living spaces, etc.

It can also be terrible for FIRE as I've seen in cases where one side or the other is super spendy. It is a great situation for building wealth if things are good and people are on the same page.

Agreed. We got to fat fire by working modest middle-class jobs seldom having household income above $100,000, but sharing the value of frugality. No kids.

It’s a good formula for financial freedom.

One of the lessons of the book “the millionaire next door”  is get married stay married. The second spouse does not even have  to be a working spouse, but shared values of frugality are key.

Too bad so many of us don't have the capacity to find the perfect partner in our 20s and often end up not being able to follow this advice.

Tons of people do the "get married" step, but staying married is actually a terrible idea for a lot of them.

ETA: also, getting divorced is sometimes the best financial decision someone can make. So the "get married and stay married" advice is actually advice to "never make a mistake on choosing your partner," which is pretty unrealistic.

I was 35 when I got married and “responsible with money” was #1 criteria for me before joining up my financial life with someone else.

Funny, I often image that I would be less concerned about DH having an affair than I would about him blowing a lot of money behind my back. This is all imaginary, I do not know what I would actually do.

Once, decades ago, he invested $1,000 in a thing that seemed fly-by-night to me with out telling me. He actually ended up making a bit of money on that deal, but it was uncharacteristic of him and it was just weird.

[iris lily]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

living with your parents is excellent strategy for retiring large amounts of debt or for saving for a house.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I would say it's much easier for a single person to FIRE.  All of our expenses are at least double what they would be for me as a single person. The only exception being housing which is only about 25% of our expenses.  And even housing is about 50% more as a married couple compared to if I was single.  Food, clothing, healthcare, entertainment, transportation, hygiene products are all double or more. Plus, I make more money and would be more frugal if it was solely up to me. Getting married only helps if you marry someone as frugal or more so than yourself who also makes at least or more than you. As a Mustachian, that's like a unicorn finding another unicorn in the wild. And yes, kids make FIRE more difficult, but I'd guess that most FIREes have kids, so it's not that much more difficult.  For myself, getting married pushed my FIRE age from 38 to 39. Kids pushed it from 39 to 41. Something like 90% of people have kids by the age of 50. So most people aren't going to choose to not have kids so they can retire a couple years sooner.

Wow... That's interesting. If you both are equally frugal, I'm struggling up see how your expenses are more than double. I mean, tooth paste and personal products would be the same. Food is cheaper or at least as cheap since you can better bulk cook. You can carpool at least some of the time to save gas... Maybe even reduce the number of vehicles you have with creativity, and many more. I'm not doubting you. I'm just confused.

[ixtap]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

I ended up looking a lot like a traditional wife for various reasons. Never once thought of myself as FIREd because I hadn't achieved FI before leaving the workforce. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for me to leave the workforce was to take on more of the household responsibilities, so it didn't seem much like retirement. I am just a hippy dropout who happens to be married to someone who enjoys their well paying job. Even now that we are FI, DH says he is part time; semi retired is a label other people put on him.

[Paper Chaser]

[wageslave23]

I would say it's much easier for a single person to FIRE.  All of our expenses are at least double what they would be for me as a single person. The only exception being housing which is only about 25% of our expenses.  And even housing is about 50% more as a married couple compared to if I was single.  Food, clothing, healthcare, entertainment, transportation, hygiene products are all double or more. Plus, I make more money and would be more frugal if it was solely up to me. Getting married only helps if you marry someone as frugal or more so than yourself who also makes at least or more than you. As a Mustachian, that's like a unicorn finding another unicorn in the wild. And yes, kids make FIRE more difficult, but I'd guess that most FIREes have kids, so it's not that much more difficult.  For myself, getting married pushed my FIRE age from 38 to 39. Kids pushed it from 39 to 41. Something like 90% of people have kids by the age of 50. So most people aren't going to choose to not have kids so they can retire a couple years sooner.

Wow... That's interesting. If you both are equally frugal, I'm struggling up see how your expenses are more than double. I mean, tooth paste and personal products would be the same. Food is cheaper or at least as cheap since you can better bulk cook. You can carpool at least some of the time to save gas... Maybe even reduce the number of vehicles you have with creativity, and many more. I'm not doubting you. I'm just confused.

We are not equally as frugal. I think the odds are that most single people on a forum like MMM will end up marrying someone less frugal. It's just the percentages. When you are part of probably the 1% most frugal in the general population then the partner you find probably won't be as frugal.  It's like if you are a left handed, red head with blue eyes,  odds are you aren't going to marry a left handed, red head with blue eyes. It's just too rare.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I would say it's much easier for a single person to FIRE.  All of our expenses are at least double what they would be for me as a single person. The only exception being housing which is only about 25% of our expenses.  And even housing is about 50% more as a married couple compared to if I was single.  Food, clothing, healthcare, entertainment, transportation, hygiene products are all double or more. Plus, I make more money and would be more frugal if it was solely up to me. Getting married only helps if you marry someone as frugal or more so than yourself who also makes at least or more than you. As a Mustachian, that's like a unicorn finding another unicorn in the wild. And yes, kids make FIRE more difficult, but I'd guess that most FIREes have kids, so it's not that much more difficult.  For myself, getting married pushed my FIRE age from 38 to 39. Kids pushed it from 39 to 41. Something like 90% of people have kids by the age of 50. So most people aren't going to choose to not have kids so they can retire a couple years sooner.

Wow... That's interesting. If you both are equally frugal, I'm struggling up see how your expenses are more than double. I mean, tooth paste and personal products would be the same. Food is cheaper or at least as cheap since you can better bulk cook. You can carpool at least some of the time to save gas... Maybe even reduce the number of vehicles you have with creativity, and many more. I'm not doubting you. I'm just confused.

We are not equally as frugal. I think the odds are that most single people on a forum like MMM will end up marrying someone less frugal. It's just the percentages. When you are part of probably the 1% most frugal in the general population then the partner you find probably won't be as frugal.  It's like if you are a left handed, red head with blue eyes,  odds are you aren't going to marry a left handed, red head with blue eyes. It's just too rare.

That makes sense. DW and I both kind of developed into frugality together, so we're pretty much on the same page.

[iris lily]

These discussions about what really constitutes “retired” seem pointless to me, but whatever. There are certainly variations on the traditional work-for-50-years-then-stop scenario.

The same banter took place about Pete when he first stepped out of the working world and took on home building. Is that “retired” said many?

Someone who is home managing financial investments—is that “retired?”

Etc etc

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

These discussions about what really constitutes “retired” seem pointless to me, but whatever. There are certainly variations on the traditional work-for-50-years-then-stop scenario.

The same banter took place about Pete when he first stepped out of the working world and took on home building. Is that “retired” said many?

Someone who is home managing financial investments—is that “retired?”

Etc etc

If not for pedantry, what would we have to discuss? :-)

[Captain FIRE]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

No. Because they are still relying on the the other spouse's income.

So the criterion is reliance on working income? So anyone who retires but then needs to rely on  PT employment or the “side-hustle” is NO LONGER RETIRED?

And—important—when the single-income couple hits their FI number, then the non-working spouse immediately becomes FIRE?

The logic for not calling non-working spouses FIRE keeps failing. We can disagree, but they’re FIREd in my book.

You may call it what you like, but on these forums, FIRE stands for Financially Independent Retire Early

Ergo if you are reliant on someone else to be working you are not Financially Independent. If you get divorced, they are hit by a bus, etc. and you need to go get a job, then yeah not FIRE.

So the criterion is reliance on working income? So anyone who retires but then needs to rely on  PT employment or the “side-hustle” is NO LONGER RETIRED?
This one is debated, this part is simple: If they need the job to fund their lifestyle, then correct, they are not FIREd. If they had higher expenses, miscalculated expenses, a change (e.g. divorce/death?), always planned to work part-time in "Coast FIRE", then they are not FIRE.
If you do not need the money to fund the lifestyle then it's more questionable. People will debate endlessly whether you are retired if you have a part-time job, but you fit the FI part at least.

And—important—when the single-income couple hits their FI number, then the non-working spouse immediately becomes FIRE?
Yep. Just like the working spouse immediately becomes FIRE when they hit that number...

[mistymoney]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

the traditional stay-at-home parent is a financial dependent. If they would not receive sufficient assets in a divorce to be FI, they are not FI.

[mistymoney]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

No. Because they are still relying on the the other spouse's income.

So the criterion is reliance on working income? So anyone who retires but then needs to rely on  PT employment or the “side-hustle” is NO LONGER RETIRED?

And—important—when the single-income couple hits their FI number, then the non-working spouse immediately becomes FIRE?

The logic for not calling non-working spouses FIRE keeps failing. We can disagree, but they’re FIREd in my book.

let me google that for you....

https://www.google.com/search?q=independent&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS925US925&oq=independent&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABixAxiABDIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIKCAQQABixAxiABDIKCAUQABixAxiABDIHCAYQABiABDIGCAcQRRg80gEINTcwN2oxajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
in·de·pend·ent
adjective
1.
free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.
"Canada's largest independent investment firm"
Similar:
freethinking
individualistic
unconventional
maverick
free
liberated
bold
free-spirited
unconstrained
unrestrained
unfettered
untrammeled
unhampered
undisciplined
wild
willful
headstrong
contrary
Opposite:
constrained
orthodox
2.
not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.
"I wanted to remain independent in old age"
Similar:
self-sufficient
self-supporting
self-sustaining
self-reliant
self-standing
self-contained
self-made
living on one's hump
Opposite:
dependent
noun
an independent person or body.
"one of the few independents left in the music business"

[Michael in ABQ]

Marrying the right person is probably the single most important life decision you can make. Financially, happiness, health, etc. On almost any objective metric you can measure it's going to be a positive.

Fortunately I did marry the right person (and my parents are still married 50+ years later) so I've never had to personally deal with the flip side of that. I've seen many other friends and family deal with it though and it's generally a huge mess.

Kids are expensive and certainly delay FIRE. On the other hand, having the freedom to spend time with your kids because you're FI or RE is a strong motivator. Personally though it's going to be a long way off and at least our oldest kids will be out of the house before we can conceivably even reach FI. That's ok because we're making decisions now that allows us to live the life we want rather than laser focusing on just accumulating a large enough stash to stop working entirely at some point in the future. Hitting FIRE 5-10 years earlier but missing those same 5-10 years with our kids is definitely not the kind of tradeoff we want to make.

[Metalcat]

These discussions about what really constitutes “retired” seem pointless to me, but whatever. There are certainly variations on the traditional work-for-50-years-then-stop scenario.

The same banter took place about Pete when he first stepped out of the working world and took on home building. Is that “retired” said many?

Someone who is home managing financial investments—is that “retired?”

Etc etc

Yes, the debate about what retirement is is pretty arbitrary, the debate about what is financially independent though is less so, still some grey area for sure, but there's a hell of a lot more consensus about it.

Like, when SkyHigh (remember him?) ranted and raved about the evil's of financial independence and basically said that, like, a homeless kid was FI and that he was FI in his early 20s even though he had to do hard manual labour for...reasons? Yeah, we all agreed that his definition of FI was pretty deranged.

[halfling]

If both of you rely on one person's income, neither of you is FIRE. One of you can retire early, but you're financially dependent (on the working person's income).

And yeah I would say kids are 100% a cost. Wanting to be able to afford to be a stay-at-home parent in my 30's instead of working was my original motivator for trying to FIRE. But we'll probably just downshift to part-time work instead. (so, not FIRE.)

[Metalcat]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

the traditional stay-at-home parent is a financial dependent. If they would not receive sufficient assets in a divorce to be FI, they are not FI.

Ooh, this does bring up the sticky issue of whether or not someone is considered FI if they wouldn't be in the event of a divorce.

I've seen many miserable couples stay together through retirement because they can't independently afford a reasonable quality of life if they split their assets in half, so they would rather the misery of each other's company than the misery of starting over with only half their shared nest egg.

This comes back to the "get married and stay married" advice. It's often a solid financial move, but sometimes with a brutal price to pay.

[Morning Glory]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

the traditional stay-at-home parent is a financial dependent. If they would not receive sufficient assets in a divorce to be FI, they are not FI.

Ooh, this does bring up the sticky issue of whether or not someone is considered FI if they wouldn't be in the event of a divorce.

I've seen many miserable couples stay together through retirement because they can't independently afford a reasonable quality of life if they split their assets in half, so they would rather the misery of each other's company than the misery of starting over with only half their shared nest egg.

This comes back to the "get married and stay married" advice. It's often a solid financial move, but sometimes with a brutal price to pay.

What about the landlord who is FI as long as his tenants pay the rent every month? Is he not dependent on someone else's labor? Even index investors rely on millions of employees making profit for their bosses for their basket of stocks to increase in value.

[Metalcat]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

Still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So if I retire with a working spouse BEFORE we have enough $$ to BOTH be FI I’m not FIREd—but when we hit our number I AM FIRE?

It seems to me that the traditional stay-at-home parent who left work to raise the kids is FIREd.

the traditional stay-at-home parent is a financial dependent. If they would not receive sufficient assets in a divorce to be FI, they are not FI.

Ooh, this does bring up the sticky issue of whether or not someone is considered FI if they wouldn't be in the event of a divorce.

I've seen many miserable couples stay together through retirement because they can't independently afford a reasonable quality of life if they split their assets in half, so they would rather the misery of each other's company than the misery of starting over with only half their shared nest egg.

This comes back to the "get married and stay married" advice. It's often a solid financial move, but sometimes with a brutal price to pay.

What about the landlord who is FI as long as his tenants pay the rent every month? Is he not dependent on someone else's labor? Even index investors rely on millions of employees making profit for their bosses for their basket of stocks to increase in value.

Sure, why not get even more into the weeds on this? It's what we do here!

Some people do question if FI through landlording is considered FIRE, because it isn't nearly as passive as it sounds.

If we're going to call passive income from stocks to not be FI though, then no one is FI, ever, and we can all just stop talking about it.

But that brings us back to our stay at home spouse. They are dependent on their partner's active income, not passive income. The income from stocks is dependent on other people's labour, as are pensions, but for the couple in question, that income is passive, which is typically the line drawn between retirement income and employment income.

This is why self employment income, like rentals, is grey area, and a topic that is frequently debated. If I own any profit machine that requires virtually no effort on my part, is that passive income? Am I working?

It's hard to say, and guaranteed it would be debated here. If I own shares of my father's company that pays dividends enough to cover my expenses, am I FI? What if I have to serve on the board? What if that board position is paid? What if it isn't?

We can split hairs on this all we want with hypotheticals until our eyes bleed.

[Loren Ver]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

What's wrong with different people living differently than you?  I know an extended family that decided to live together.  The core mother and father built a house so they, their son, his girlfriend, the grandchild, an aunt, and an uncle could all live together.  Since they already all lived in the same northern Indiana town they decided to just do it together as family.  They also have a flock of dogs.  There is always a ride to a doctor's appointments, a babysitter, and food being cooked. 

How is that not a strategy? It is like societies have been doing it for centuries....

[iris lily]

These discussions about what really constitutes “retired” seem pointless to me, but whatever. There are certainly variations on the traditional work-for-50-years-then-stop scenario.

The same banter took place about Pete when he first stepped out of the working world and took on home building. Is that “retired” said many?

Someone who is home managing financial investments—is that “retired?”

Etc etc

If not for pedantry, what would we have to discuss? :-)

Well, true that

[Ron Scott]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

What's wrong with different people living differently than you?  I know an extended family that decided to live together.  The core mother and father built a house so they, their son, his girlfriend, the grandchild, an aunt, and an uncle could all live together.  Since they already all lived in the same northern Indiana town they decided to just do it together as family.  They also have a flock of dogs.  There is always a ride to a doctor's appointments, a babysitter, and food being cooked. 

How is that not a strategy? It is like societies have been doing it for centuries....

No, you’re right. Different strokes…

I think it’s healthy to leave your first nest and build your own, but that’s just me.

[Metalcat]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

What's wrong with different people living differently than you?  I know an extended family that decided to live together.  The core mother and father built a house so they, their son, his girlfriend, the grandchild, an aunt, and an uncle could all live together.  Since they already all lived in the same northern Indiana town they decided to just do it together as family.  They also have a flock of dogs.  There is always a ride to a doctor's appointments, a babysitter, and food being cooked. 

How is that not a strategy? It is like societies have been doing it for centuries....

No, you’re right. Different strokes…

I think it’s healthy to leave your first nest and build your own, but that’s just me.

That's just your cultural norm you mean.

[Ron Scott]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

What's wrong with different people living differently than you?  I know an extended family that decided to live together.  The core mother and father built a house so they, their son, his girlfriend, the grandchild, an aunt, and an uncle could all live together.  Since they already all lived in the same northern Indiana town they decided to just do it together as family.  They also have a flock of dogs.  There is always a ride to a doctor's appointments, a babysitter, and food being cooked. 

How is that not a strategy? It is like societies have been doing it for centuries....

No, you’re right. Different strokes…

I think it’s healthy to leave your first nest and build your own, but that’s just me.

That's just your cultural norm you mean.

I actually said what I meant.

[Metalcat]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

What's wrong with different people living differently than you?  I know an extended family that decided to live together.  The core mother and father built a house so they, their son, his girlfriend, the grandchild, an aunt, and an uncle could all live together.  Since they already all lived in the same northern Indiana town they decided to just do it together as family.  They also have a flock of dogs.  There is always a ride to a doctor's appointments, a babysitter, and food being cooked. 

How is that not a strategy? It is like societies have been doing it for centuries....

No, you’re right. Different strokes…

I think it’s healthy to leave your first nest and build your own, but that’s just me.

That's just your cultural norm you mean.

I actually said what I meant.

Ah, gotcha...

[vand]

DINK is an automatic no-brainer if numbers are your only concern. Surprised anyone needs to point this out.

It's a good job we're humans and not robts - if FIRE was the most important thing to everyone and birth rates declined to zero... think its safe to say that I wouldn't be using 4%SWR no matter what the backtests says..

[vand]

I would say living off someone else is not FIRE. In that case living with your parents is the best life decision.

I’ve heard others say something like this but it makes no sense to me. If my spouse is gainfully employed and making a good income, why can’t I retire and be FIRE? I am FI so I RE: FIRE.

Saying you can’t be FIRE if you have a working spouse sounds like some strange mental gymnastics to me.

And living with your parents after 18 or college or whatever, is kinda wack, no? Maybe to tie you over between jobs, but not as a strategy?

If you are dependent on your spouse's good income for living expenses, you are by definition not FI (financially independent).
If you are actually FI from prior savings and your spouse is working for whatever reason, sure you can be FIRE.

As an individual you may not be. As a household you are.  If the household unit is broken up of course not all parties may retain their FI status.

[Villanelle]

These discussions about what really constitutes “retired” seem pointless to me, but whatever. There are certainly variations on the traditional work-for-50-years-then-stop scenario.

The same banter took place about Pete when he first stepped out of the working world and took on home building. Is that “retired” said many?

Someone who is home managing financial investments—is that “retired?”

Etc etc

If not for pedantry, what would we have to discuss? :-)

But is it pedantry?  I'm not sure I agree with that assessment of the conversation.


j/k

[Zikoris]

I've seen way more examples where the frugal person in the couple end up spending WAY more partnered up because of differences in desired standard of living. Certainly in my case I would not save a cent paired up with the vast majority of people versus single. My partner is frugal as well (which is not luck, I selected for those traits), but most people, for example, would not want to live in a studio as a couple, and given my studio is particularly cheap, a standard apartment acceptable to a "normal" person would be easily be double or more the cost, so I wouldn't even save on housing. Probably bills like internet would triple in cost (I have a VERY barebones plan), and a bunch of new ones added as well that I don't use (like television, subscription services). Most people would expect a lot more restaurants/bars/takeout/etc than I would ever want. It's also likely car expenses would become a thing, when I currently spend at most $20/month on rare transit use. And so on. And this isn't even me describing a particularly extravagant person, just a totally normal, average city-dweller.

[Telecaster]

I think a lot of these posts just make FIRE straight up too complicated.   

One stay-at-home parent might be financially optimal.   But both parents might want to have careers.   Sending your kids to private schools will delay FIRE.  But some people want that for their kids.     Some people don't want to FIRE.  Financially optimal doesn't necessarily mean lifestyle optimal.  Most people pursue FIRE with the end goal of living the lifestyle they want, not sacrificing their lifestyle for the sake of FIRE alone.   Although I suppose some do that, that's not the vast majority of people here.

So, if you'd like to have kids, knock yourself out!  If both parents want careers, go for it!   If you are willing to delay FIRE a couple years so you can pursue an expensive hobby while you are young, be my guest.  If I were to summarize the whole theme of MMM, it isn't to eliminate things you love or really want.   It is to eliminate things that don't make you happy. 

[Metalcat]

I think a lot of these posts just make FIRE straight up too complicated.   

One stay-at-home parent might be financially optimal.   But both parents might want to have careers.   Sending your kids to private schools will delay FIRE.  But some people want that for their kids.     Some people don't want to FIRE.  Financially optimal doesn't necessarily mean lifestyle optimal.  Most people pursue FIRE with the end goal of living the lifestyle they want, not sacrificing their lifestyle for the sake of FIRE alone.   Although I suppose some do that, that's not the vast majority of people here.

So, if you'd like to have kids, knock yourself out!  If both parents want careers, go for it!   If you are willing to delay FIRE a couple years so you can pursue an expensive hobby while you are young, be my guest.  If I were to summarize the whole theme of MMM, it isn't to eliminate things you love or really want.   It is to eliminate things that don't make you happy.

Yeah...kind of the entire point.