NYT article on FIRE

[Blackeagle]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/magazine/retire-early-saving.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qE0.B18s.Vh4Jv2G1ONQU&smid=url-share

Generally positive about FIRE.  Name-checks MMM.

[uniwelder]

It was well put together.  The author definitely knows the community.  Only thing I find annoying is the focus on the super rich fat-FIRE crowd.

[Freedomin5]

Thanks for sharing.

[bacchi]

Yeah, it's a good article. We might see a new influx of posters like when the WaPo article was published.

Even though it sprouted up only seven years ago, r/FatFIRE is on the verge of overtaking r/FIRE in size,

File this under "duh." How many of those FatFIRE seekers get disillusioned when the big "exit" doesn't happen though?

[uniwelder]

MMM has commented about the article.  I copied/pasted from Facebook---

"Have you read the latest NY Times article about the FIRE movement?
It's a well-done story, but I admit I have mixed feelings about it. On the positive side, I like the thorough research and relatively accurate / unbiased style of the author Amy Wang.
But since the idea of "Fat FIRE" is exactly the opposite of the whole reason I started writing about the subject (to get my fellow rich people interested in destroying slightly less of the Earth, as noted in the story), I'm naturally biased against that aspect of things.
On the other hand, maybe it will serve as a gateway drug so that rich New Yorkers will at least take a look, and then they'll get sucked into the Rabbit Hole of Slightly Less Ridiculous Living?"

[Tass]

Yeah, it's a good article. We might see a new influx of posters like when the WaPo article was published.

Even though it sprouted up only seven years ago, r/FatFIRE is on the verge of overtaking r/FIRE in size,

File this under "duh." How many of those FatFIRE seekers get disillusioned when the big "exit" doesn't happen though?

My understanding is that r/financialindependence has been the preferred FIRE subreddit for some time. And that one has over 4x more members than r/FatFIRE.

[Telecaster]

Easy path to FIRE:  First, create an app that generates $250,000 per month...

[twinstudy]

I think some of the FatFIRE lifestyle creep is a little gauche (the gold Lambo...having said that I plan to buy a 488GTB so I guess it's not that far off) but it's nice to see FIRE getting attention in the larger community.

Fatfire income with chubby fire spending is where I want to be.

[somers515]

MMM has commented about the article.  I copied/pasted from Facebook---

"Have you read the latest NY Times article about the FIRE movement?
It's a well-done story, but I admit I have mixed feelings about it. On the positive side, I like the thorough research and relatively accurate / unbiased style of the author Amy Wang.
But since the idea of "Fat FIRE" is exactly the opposite of the whole reason I started writing about the subject (to get my fellow rich people interested in destroying slightly less of the Earth, as noted in the story), I'm naturally biased against that aspect of things.
On the other hand, maybe it will serve as a gateway drug so that rich New Yorkers will at least take a look, and then they'll get sucked into the Rabbit Hole of Slightly Less Ridiculous Living?"

Thanks for sharing MMM's take on this article. I was also struck by how much emphasis was placed on "Fat FIRE" in the article. Not surprisingly perhaps, I'm inclined to agree with MMM's take on this.

[Tass]

I think some of the FatFIRE lifestyle creep is a little gauche...

More than a little, I'd say. It's a pity that the examples of people climbing out of debt and poverty are too far into the article to catch the attention of anyone who isn't already committed to reading it.

[Captain Cactus]

Nouveau rich.  I’ve been pursuing FI since 2015… not gonna lie, there was a twinge of desire to start looking for “moonshot” investments that will get me to my goal faster…then I realized I don’t have a crystal ball or coding skills that I can leverage to make a killer app/money tree that produces $250,000 per month.  Guess it’s back to the Simple Path to Wealth?

[Arbitrage]

Yeah, it's a good article. We might see a new influx of posters like when the WaPo article was published.

Even though it sprouted up only seven years ago, r/FatFIRE is on the verge of overtaking r/FIRE in size,

File this under "duh." How many of those FatFIRE seekers get disillusioned when the big "exit" doesn't happen though?

My understanding is that r/financialindependence has been the preferred FIRE subreddit for some time. And that one has over 4x more members than r/FatFIRE.

Yes.  I think the only reason that r/FIRE even exists is because the moderation used to be overly restrictive on r/financialindependence. 

[bacchi]

When we discuss FatFIRE, we think of FIRE at greater than median household income levels. For example, spending $150k/year instead of $60k.

The concept of FatFIRE discussed in the article is no different from what children (usually boys) think of when they put posters of Lambos on the wall. No kid, if they stopped to think about it, was thinking "I'm going to buy a Lamborghini and a mansion but still work my 9-5 day job as a mid-level manager!" This type of dreaming is not a new concept. It's just been repackaged to fit in the FIRE movement.

[mizzourah2006]

I mean maybe this is splitting hairs, but did he actually retire? He still runs the app, correct? If he sold the app and had no responsibility for keeping it up to date, etc. then I'd say he's retired, but the way it reads he's just a business owner that isn't doing the 9-5 grind.

I also think this isn't the intention of the FIRE movement. Hitting it big at a startup or being a successful real estate mogul or business owner and getting uber rich and retiring isn't a new concept. I mean one could argue FIRE isn't new, but the basic concept is unique in a passive investing world that is open to the masses, unlike say in the 1970s and 1980s;. e.g. live significantly below your means, invest a large portion of your income into passive index funds and assuming the market does it's job reap the rewards 15-20 years later.

That's not to say people shouldn't take those moonshots, but it's to say they are relatively rare.

[2sk22]

I mean maybe this is splitting hairs, but did he actually retire? He still runs the app, correct? If he sold the app and had no responsibility for keeping it up to date, etc. then I'd say he's retired, but the way it reads he's just a business owner that isn't doing the 9-5 grind.

I also think this isn't the intention of the FIRE movement. Hitting it big at a startup or being a successful real estate mogul or business owner and getting uber rich and retiring isn't a new concept. I mean one could argue FIRE isn't new, but the basic concept is unique in a passive investing world that is open to the masses, unlike say in the 1970s and 1980s;. e.g. live significantly below your means, invest a large portion of your income into passive index funds and assuming the market does it's job reap the rewards 15-20 years later.

That's not to say people shouldn't take those moonshots, but it's to say they are relatively rare.

I agree. The way I have always interpreted FIRE is that it is a specific pathway to financial independence and then retirement. Hitting the jackpot (IPO, buyout hit product, lottery winner  etc) is, in my mind at least, a separate pathway.

[bacchi]

I mean maybe this is splitting hairs, but did he actually retire? He still runs the app, correct? If he sold the app and had no responsibility for keeping it up to date, etc. then I'd say he's retired, but the way it reads he's just a business owner that isn't doing the 9-5 grind.

I also think this isn't the intention of the FIRE movement. Hitting it big at a startup or being a successful real estate mogul or business owner and getting uber rich and retiring isn't a new concept. I mean one could argue FIRE isn't new, but the basic concept is unique in a passive investing world that is open to the masses, unlike say in the 1970s and 1980s;. e.g. live significantly below your means, invest a large portion of your income into passive index funds and assuming the market does it's job reap the rewards 15-20 years later.

That's not to say people shouldn't take those moonshots, but it's to say they are relatively rare.

I agree. The way I have always interpreted FIRE is that it is a specific pathway to financial independence and then retirement. Hitting the jackpot (IPO, buyout hit product, lottery winner  etc) is, in my mind at least, a separate pathway.

It's amorphous, right? If I hit it big in an IPO, I would've considered myself FIRE -- I worked towards that goal, after all. I wouldn't consider an heir or lottery winner to be FIRE.

Also part of the (my) definition is someone who can support their lifestyle without working. In other words, a total layabout that can still pay the bills on the house and car(s). It's unclear if Wong (from the article) can do so without maintaining and updating the app. He sounds like he lives an expensive lifestyle. (That Lamborghini isn't going to drive itself to the shop every other month!)

[roomtempmayo]

a little gauche

Nouveau rich. 

I didn't find myself relating to the profiles at all, and I don't think it's only the big spending.

My understanding of the original FIRE philosophy was a combo of old fashioned WASPy thrift and lifestyle modesty combined with modern professional earning and investing, and a concern for the environment.  It wasn't anti-work so much as pro-freedom, and people like MMM were and are very much still working even if they aren't employed.  There was a sense of community contribution and charitability, maybe even a bit of noblesse oblige.

I don't see much of that in the profiles in the NYT, which read to me very much as still trapped in a poverty mindset (just with abundant money) and lacking any expressed concern for community or the wider world.  The simple answer to the Florida Man about what he should do with all his time and money now that he's checked all of his consumptive boxes is that he should try and make himself and the world better.  Making a bunch of money just to squander it is gross.

[Tass]

Making a bunch of money just to squander it is gross.

Hit the nail on the head here. This is what's off-putting about that profile.

[theninthwall]

I read through the article. I feel like people who may benefit from FIRE may not realize just how possible it is if this article is their first introduction.

The great thing about FIRE is that it provides a recipe for early retirement that many people can use without waiting for a lottery win (which seems to be a surprising popular, if not successful, strategy). No, it won't work for everybody in any given situation and much privilege is involved, but for a large chunk of the middle class world it is possible. The chances of success greatly increase if you can avoid the consumption traps laid everywhere.

[wageslave23]

Tip of the cap to anyone who read the entire article.  I read for a long time but it seemed to be rambling and going in circles. I guess for the most part it was accurate and informative. But it was also bloated and all over the place. Seems like it would be way more simple to just give two examples of FIRE, one lean and one fat, and then explain the simple concept of spending less than you earn and investing the rest in order to live off your investments.  It's not rocket science and it doesn't require extreme anything.

[FireLane]

It's not the worst article I've read about FIRE, but it's not the best either. It does a good job of discussing the philosophy of financial independence and basics like the 4% rule.

On the other hand, it has a heavy focus on fatFIRE, which is both the least interesting kind of FIRE (because their lifestyle looks just like the lifestyle of every other rich person) and least useful for everyone else (sure, you too can retire early, just make an app that generates $250,000 a month!).

I imagine this was a choice for the sake of the clickbait/wow factor. But it would have been more relatable, and more useful, if it had spent more time on how regular people with non-insane incomes made it to FI.

I wanted to hear more about that librarian who wiped out $200,000 in debt in seven years! The reporter should have spent more time on her, and less on that professional troll Sam Dogen who says a $300,000 income isn't enough to retire on.

[twinstudy]

In a way I am not sure that 'normalFIRE' is any more achievable for regular folk than FatFIRE. Obviously, earning a super high income is not easy, but neither is the planning, discipline, focus, luck (with health conditions) and all-round scrabbling required to FIRE with an average income. The latter also lacks glam factor, hence why it is rarely discussed in the popular press.

[Zikoris]

In a way I am not sure that 'normalFIRE' is any more achievable for regular folk than FatFIRE. Obviously, earning a super high income is not easy, but neither is the planning, discipline, focus, luck (with health conditions) and all-round scrabbling required to FIRE with an average income. The latter also lacks glam factor, hence why it is rarely discussed in the popular press.

I agree that there is an element of luck re: health conditions, but in my experience the rest is take it or leave it. I am VERY average income and guarantee that discipline, focus, and scrabbling are not words that describe me in the slightest. Planning to some extent, but only in the sense of setting up a set-it-and-forget-it system 10+ years ago - I certainly don't do any of that now. None of the things I've done to set up FIRE have been difficult at all.

[Telecaster]

I read through the article. I feel like people who may benefit from FIRE may not realize just how possible it is if this article is their first introduction.

The great thing about FIRE is that it provides a recipe for early retirement that many people can use without waiting for a lottery win (which seems to be a surprising popular, if not successful, strategy). No, it won't work for everybody in any given situation and much privilege is involved, but for a large chunk of the middle class world it is possible. The chances of success greatly increase if you can avoid the consumption traps laid everywhere.

Great post.  Even if you are in your 40s or 50s, adopting a FIRE mentality can greatly improve your lifestyle in retirement--even if you don't retire early.  A large part of that is eliminating most stressors that accompany money issues and the reality is that most shit you buy doesn't actually make you more happy.  So adopting a FIRE mindset of efficient spending is not a sacrifice, it is simply optimizing spending to maximize happiness.  Not worrying about money increases happiness a lot, and not having to work if you don't have to decreases stress by an enormous amount. 

Most journalists focus on the sacrifice part, without realize there is not actually much sacrifice.  It is just refocusing spending to maximize happiness and reduce stress. 

[314159]

Agree with those above who said it's far from the worst article on FIRE. If it lets more people know about the possibility, that's a good thing, though I could have done without the lambo guy.

I first found MMM from a different NYT article, "How to Retire in Your 30s with $1 Million in the Bank" (that one was in the newspaper, unlike this more recent one which was in the NYT Magazine), which 5.5 years later looks like a very fair description. Perhaps too much emphasis on people hating their jobs, not enough on people realizing that even with an okay job, life still has so much more to offer.

Apparently this issue is the Retirement Issue for NYT Magazine, and there are some other retirement related articles, like "These Couples Survived a Lot. Then Came Retirement." The lesson there is, have something to retire to/don't build your whole identity around work, an age-old piece of wisdom in this community.

[jade]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/magazine/retire-early-saving.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qE0.B18s.Vh4Jv2G1ONQU&smid=url-share

Generally positive about FIRE.  Name-checks MMM.

Interesting. Thanks @Blackeagle

[sonofsven]

Yes, thanks for the NYT link. I thought it was a decent primer that tried to offer varying perspectives.
But the author admits that her main interest is in fatFIRE, so obviously that angle dominated the article, to it's detriment.
Reading the NYT comments was, typically, sad.

[jeninco]

Yes, thanks for the NYT link. I thought it was a decent primer that tried to offer varying perspectives.
But the author admits that her main interest is in fatFIRE, so obviously that angle dominated the article, to it's detriment.
Reading the NYT comments was, typically, sad.

Yeah, I'm mostly here for the "let's not trash the world by purchasing shit we don't need that doesn't make us happier" angle, with a side of "gee, we don't have to work if we don't want to/if the bosses make things suck too much."  I thought the emphasis on super-consumption was gross.

[roomtempmayo]

I wanted to hear more about that librarian who wiped out $200,000 in debt in seven years!

Yeah, me too.

If there's pretty legitimate criticism of mainstream FIRE ideas, it's that they take starting adult life more or less with your head above water financially as a given.

Lots of folks, especially in Gen Z, are going to find FIRE once they're already well in the red financially (typical college grad has $40k in student loans the day of graduation), and only typical earning potential. 

I find the stories of what people did when they didn't get an ideal start far more interesting than hearing about people who made all the right choices at 18, 20, or 22, or people who just got lucky.  Someone who is 22 with zero debt and a marketable skillset has more or less already won, they just need to execute.  Tell me about how the librarian changed course so drastically, you know?

[Log]

I wanted to hear more about that librarian who wiped out $200,000 in debt in seven years!

...If there's pretty legitimate criticism of mainstream FIRE ideas, it's that they take starting adult life more or less with your head above water financially as a given.

Lots of folks, especially in Gen Z, are going to find FIRE once they're already well in the red financially (typical college grad has $40k in student loans the day of graduation), and only typical earning potential...

I had ~50k in student loans when I finished grad school in 2021, and my income has been under $50k annually since then. It would have been very easy to give in to financial nihilism if I hadn't received such a great personal finance education from MMM and JLCollins.

[Zikoris]

I wanted to hear more about that librarian who wiped out $200,000 in debt in seven years!

Yeah, me too.

If there's pretty legitimate criticism of mainstream FIRE ideas, it's that they take starting adult life more or less with your head above water financially as a given.

Lots of folks, especially in Gen Z, are going to find FIRE once they're already well in the red financially (typical college grad has $40k in student loans the day of graduation), and only typical earning potential. 

I find the stories of what people did when they didn't get an ideal start far more interesting than hearing about people who made all the right choices at 18, 20, or 22, or people who just got lucky.  Someone who is 22 with zero debt and a marketable skillset has more or less already won, they just need to execute.  Tell me about how the librarian changed course so drastically, you know?

A long time ago one of the big bloggers addressed that (it was either MMM or ERE, can't remember) - he pointed out out that debt is less of a big deal for FIRE people because it gets eliminated really fast regardless due to the fire-hose of a 50%+ savings rate.

[roomtempmayo]

I wanted to hear more about that librarian who wiped out $200,000 in debt in seven years!

Yeah, me too.

If there's pretty legitimate criticism of mainstream FIRE ideas, it's that they take starting adult life more or less with your head above water financially as a given.

Lots of folks, especially in Gen Z, are going to find FIRE once they're already well in the red financially (typical college grad has $40k in student loans the day of graduation), and only typical earning potential. 

I find the stories of what people did when they didn't get an ideal start far more interesting than hearing about people who made all the right choices at 18, 20, or 22, or people who just got lucky.  Someone who is 22 with zero debt and a marketable skillset has more or less already won, they just need to execute.  Tell me about how the librarian changed course so drastically, you know?

A long time ago one of the big bloggers addressed that (it was either MMM or ERE, can't remember) - he pointed out out that debt is less of a big deal for FIRE people because it gets eliminated really fast regardless due to the fire-hose of a 50%+ savings rate.

If you've got $200k in debt at 6, 7, 8% and you're making ~$45k/year as a librarian, a 50% savings rate isn't going to clear that debt very fast.

[Zikoris]

I wanted to hear more about that librarian who wiped out $200,000 in debt in seven years!

Yeah, me too.

If there's pretty legitimate criticism of mainstream FIRE ideas, it's that they take starting adult life more or less with your head above water financially as a given.

Lots of folks, especially in Gen Z, are going to find FIRE once they're already well in the red financially (typical college grad has $40k in student loans the day of graduation), and only typical earning potential. 

I find the stories of what people did when they didn't get an ideal start far more interesting than hearing about people who made all the right choices at 18, 20, or 22, or people who just got lucky.  Someone who is 22 with zero debt and a marketable skillset has more or less already won, they just need to execute.  Tell me about how the librarian changed course so drastically, you know?

A long time ago one of the big bloggers addressed that (it was either MMM or ERE, can't remember) - he pointed out out that debt is less of a big deal for FIRE people because it gets eliminated really fast regardless due to the fire-hose of a 50%+ savings rate.

If you've got $200k in debt at 6, 7, 8% and you're making ~$45k/year as a librarian, a 50% savings rate isn't going to clear that debt very fast.

I think he was more looking at average debt versus total-financial-idiot outliers. 45K income and 40-50K debt is very doable with a high savings rate.

[wageslave23]

I wanted to hear more about that librarian who wiped out $200,000 in debt in seven years!

Yeah, me too.

If there's pretty legitimate criticism of mainstream FIRE ideas, it's that they take starting adult life more or less with your head above water financially as a given.

Lots of folks, especially in Gen Z, are going to find FIRE once they're already well in the red financially (typical college grad has $40k in student loans the day of graduation), and only typical earning potential. 

I find the stories of what people did when they didn't get an ideal start far more interesting than hearing about people who made all the right choices at 18, 20, or 22, or people who just got lucky.  Someone who is 22 with zero debt and a marketable skillset has more or less already won, they just need to execute.  Tell me about how the librarian changed course so drastically, you know?

A long time ago one of the big bloggers addressed that (it was either MMM or ERE, can't remember) - he pointed out out that debt is less of a big deal for FIRE people because it gets eliminated really fast regardless due to the fire-hose of a 50%+ savings rate.

If you've got $200k in debt at 6, 7, 8% and you're making ~$45k/year as a librarian, a 50% savings rate isn't going to clear that debt very fast.

I had 60k debt at graduation.  Made 40k at my first job after graduation. Extended the payments out as far as possible.  Spent about $25k and put the rest towards investing.  After one year changed to a new company at 50k. After two years there switched to a new job at 70k. After a year switched companies again to 80k. Kept spending around 30k. Put the minimum towards students loans, and invested the rest. Bought a house and then bought a second house. Rented both out and kept living in a cheap apartment for the first 5 years. By that time I still owed 50k but had 100k in investments and equity. 8 years after that I still owe 15k, but I have a million In investments and about 400k in equity.  So student loans just delay things, as does college in general.  But as long as you keep your expenses low and keep working your way up the ladder you'll be fine.

[fuzzy math]

No one else noticed he had terrible games for game night??

[Cranky]

Tip of the cap to anyone who read the entire article.  I read for a long time but it seemed to be rambling and going in circles. I guess for the most part it was accurate and informative. But it was also bloated and all over the place. Seems like it would be way more simple to just give two examples of FIRE, one lean and one fat, and then explain the simple concept of spending less than you earn and investing the rest in order to live off your investments.  It's not rocket science and it doesn't require extreme anything.

It’s part of the NYT magazine and the whole issue is about retirement. They are all by design long and chatty.

[Ron Scott]

MMM has commented about the article.  I copied/pasted from Facebook---

"Have you read the latest NY Times article about the FIRE movement?
It's a well-done story, but I admit I have mixed feelings about it. On the positive side, I like the thorough research and relatively accurate / unbiased style of the author Amy Wang.
But since the idea of "Fat FIRE" is exactly the opposite of the whole reason I started writing about the subject (to get my fellow rich people interested in destroying slightly less of the Earth, as noted in the story), I'm naturally biased against that aspect of things.
On the other hand, maybe it will serve as a gateway drug so that rich New Yorkers will at least take a look, and then they'll get sucked into the Rabbit Hole of Slightly Less Ridiculous Living?"

Thanks for sharing MMM's take on this article. I was also struck by how much emphasis was placed on "Fat FIRE" in the article. Not surprisingly perhaps, I'm inclined to agree with MMM's take on this.

The problem I have with this is it promotes unnecessary groupthink and we-they divisions between people based on what should really be celebrated as natural differences in approach. It is perfectly acceptable to strive for low-income or higher-income retirement. Criticizing others because they choose a different way is all to familiar today in politics and life in general. It’s so f’ing tiring…

[2Birds1Stone]

The problem I have with this is it promotes unnecessary groupthink and we-they divisions between people based on what should really be celebrated as natural differences in approach. It is perfectly acceptable to strive for low-income or higher-income retirement. Criticizing others because they choose a different way is all to familiar today in politics and life in general. It’s so f’ing tiring…

As MMM pointed out in his comment, it's not about a difference in approach, it's about a fundamental difference in the "why".

MMM started this blog not to help millions of people figure out how to consume as much resources as humanly possible while working the shortest career possible, he did it to encourage people to be less wasteful/more mindful of their consumption/ecological impact.

So it is very much a we-they division, and unfortunately a lot of people who are here missed the whole point of the MMM message.

[Ron Scott]

The problem I have with this is it promotes unnecessary groupthink and we-they divisions between people based on what should really be celebrated as natural differences in approach. It is perfectly acceptable to strive for low-income or higher-income retirement. Criticizing others because they choose a different way is all to familiar today in politics and life in general. It’s so f’ing tiring…

As MMM pointed out in his comment, it's not about a difference in approach, it's about a fundamental difference in the "why".

MMM started this blog not to help millions of people figure out how to consume as much resources as humanly possible while working the shortest career possible, he did it to encourage people to be less wasteful/more mindful of their consumption/ecological impact.

So it is very much a we-they division, and unfortunately a lot of people who are here missed the whole point of the MMM message.

Or…the point is so clear everyone gets it, but some consider the nuances and don’t buy into it as a package philosophy—hook, line, and sinker.

For the environmentally conscious: There are some VERY expensive and fun urban lifestyles with smaller ecological impacts than lower-income lifestyles in LCOL areas—just for one example. You could also make the case that it’s better to work a full-time job on solutions to ecological challenges than to simply quit working altogether, since your work could have a much greater impact than one person’s carbon footprint.

Tying FIRE to environmental protection isn’t a panacea for the environment.

But my real point is the groupthink all this creates serves more to alienate people than engage them in meaningful dialogue. Labeling and criticizing others to form a like-minded group is ultimately a low-brow game IMO.

[314159]

No one else noticed he had terrible games for game night??

Hold up, you're right! He has Clue, Sorry, and a bunch of 500-100 piece puzzles? Including a Clue-themed puzzle. Weird.