New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement (sort of) plan

[Eric]

If I were a woman, I might be hypersensitive about word choice on the internet too. So much of it is sexist. That said, I think there are a lot of other possible explanations for his choice of words and his surprise. Or maybe the number of women was 85% and he was surprised it wasnt 50-50. He hasn't given me the impression of being a sexist on any other occasion, and is aware of social privilege and acknowledged it in several posts (this tends to align with feminism). Also, people can have sexist beliefs that get overturned, or examined. I'm sure there are beliefs and attitudes about women I have that still need work. We are all in process. So I personally give the benefit of the doubt.

For some reason the phrase "if I were a woman..." Just made me spit up my drink.

It's possible!  Hooray for modern science/medicine!  Of course, the biggest issue with the transformation is that you then have to be disgusted with all the sexist FIRE'd blog writers while continuing to post on their site.  It's something us men will never understand.

[obstinate]

For some reason the phrase "if I were a woman..." Just made me spit up my drink.

Why would that cause you to spit your drink? I don't think it's particularly unusual for me to try to put myself in the shoes of someone who has to deal with shit that I never do. Obviously, empathy has its limits. You can never truly appreciate the hardship that others go through. But it's worth trying.

[tobitonic]

More than anyone else in this thread, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with respect to a.) retirement and b.) spending.

If MMM is "retired", so is Mark Zuckerberg.

And yes, the whole "business expense" stuff is part of why my wife has always found the MMM persona untrustworthy, and it's directly tied to the intellectual dishonesty about being retired.

He hit FI but still likes making money, but self-employment blogs don't draw nearly as much attention as early retirement blogs. By the same token, he hit FI but still likes to travel and get access to things that, quite frankly, cost money. Spending money on those things undercuts the message that you don't need to spend money to really enjoy life, and it also undercuts the brandable tagline of how awesome he lives for (insert half median HHI figure here) a year.

The solution to both issues is to pursue one aggressive self-employment scheme after another, earmark income and expenses as business transactions, and barter your time and work for things you want that would normally cost money. You then get to refer to yourself as retired, travel the world for "free", and champion your low income and expenses.

I don't mind any of this per se; I just think he could do it all without the convoluted semantics and he'd still have a ton of readership.

And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.

What do you see as the difference between being FI and self-employed (while raking in billions), being FI and self-employed (while raking in millions), and being FI and self-employed (while raking in hundreds of thousands)? Calling yourself retired?

[Gin1984]

For some reason the phrase "if I were a woman..." Just made me spit up my drink.

Why would that cause you to spit your drink? I don't think it's particularly unusual for me to try to put myself in the shoes of someone who has to deal with shit that I never do. Obviously, empathy has its limits. You can never truly appreciate the hardship that others go through. But it's worth trying.

It made me think of the song "if I were a man" so I sung your first line in my head.  I think sometimes things just tickle, your point was well made, just the phrase...

[nereo]

There were some in his articles and more so in the comments when people called him on it.  Now, when I say sexist I don't mean someone who flat out says women are worth less than men etc.  It is a bias, not meant, but actions and behaviors still show it.  Is he anymore sexist than most other people, I doubt it.  Is his unwillingness to look at what being male got him and what attitudes he is displaying/perpetuating going to cause harm, well yes.  That has well been shown in multiple studies in regard to attitudes towards women in jobs.  Is the fact that he no longer works going to decrease the possibility of harm, yes.   
So tldr, yes, but so what?

It is inherently impossible for someone to know whether their circumstances are owed to gender, chance, genetics etc.

And just so we are using the same terminology:

Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.

[nereo]

For some reason the phrase "if I were a woman..." Just made me spit up my drink.

Why would that cause you to spit your drink? I don't think it's particularly unusual for me to try to put myself in the shoes of someone who has to deal with shit that I never do. Obviously, empathy has its limits. You can never truly appreciate the hardship that others go through. But it's worth trying.

It made me think of the song "if I were a man" so I sung your first line in my head.  I think sometimes things just tickle, your point was well made, just the phrase...

Exactly.  I just an image of some bloke singing " if I were a woman..." 
It's nothing more than that.

[nereo]

More than anyone else in this thread, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with respect to a.) retirement and b.) spending.

If MMM is "retired", so is Mark Zuckerberg.

And yes, the whole "business expense" stuff is part of why my wife has always found the MMM persona untrustworthy, and it's directly tied to the intellectual dishonesty about being retired.

He hit FI but still likes making money, but self-employment blogs don't draw nearly as much attention as early retirement blogs. By the same token, he hit FI but still likes to travel and get access to things that, quite frankly, cost money. Spending money on those things undercuts the message that you don't need to spend money to really enjoy life, and it also undercuts the brandable tagline of how awesome he lives for (insert half median HHI figure here) a year.

The solution to both issues is to pursue one aggressive self-employment scheme after another, earmark income and expenses as business transactions, and barter your time and work for things you want that would normally cost money. You then get to refer to yourself as retired, travel the world for "free", and champion your low income and expenses.

I don't mind any of this per se; I just think he could do it all without the convoluted semantics and he'd still have a ton of readership.

And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.

What do you see as the difference between being FI and self-employed (while raking in billions), being FI and self-employed (while raking in millions), and being FI and self-employed (while raking in hundreds of thousands)? Calling yourself retired?

It's a bit unfair to delete so much context.
One point is simply that Buffett and others don't consider themselves retired.  This really is the IRP all over again.

[Vertical Mode]

I'm sorry, y'all. I didn't mean to derail the thread, just curiosity getting the better of me. It is amazing how many different ways we can interpret and respond to the same text.

RE: Zuck/Buffett, etc - one major difference there is that those folks don't walk around claiming to be "retired". Also, Buffett is old enough that it wouldn't be all that odd to be "retired" at his age, whereas Pete/MMM is definitely an outlier in this capacity. Like what Ryo said upthread about the nail that sticks out...

Do we accept the premise that "retirement" is something that the individual in question gets to decide what that means to them? Independently of whether or not someone's math works such that their finances are sustainable in retirement based on SWR's and such, who would we be to tell someone they WEREN'T actually retired, and why should they care what anyone else thinks?

ETA: looks like nereo is just a little quicker on the draw than I am ;-)

[tobitonic]

More than anyone else in this thread, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with respect to a.) retirement and b.) spending.

If MMM is "retired", so is Mark Zuckerberg.

And yes, the whole "business expense" stuff is part of why my wife has always found the MMM persona untrustworthy, and it's directly tied to the intellectual dishonesty about being retired.

He hit FI but still likes making money, but self-employment blogs don't draw nearly as much attention as early retirement blogs. By the same token, he hit FI but still likes to travel and get access to things that, quite frankly, cost money. Spending money on those things undercuts the message that you don't need to spend money to really enjoy life, and it also undercuts the brandable tagline of how awesome he lives for (insert half median HHI figure here) a year.

The solution to both issues is to pursue one aggressive self-employment scheme after another, earmark income and expenses as business transactions, and barter your time and work for things you want that would normally cost money. You then get to refer to yourself as retired, travel the world for "free", and champion your low income and expenses.

I don't mind any of this per se; I just think he could do it all without the convoluted semantics and he'd still have a ton of readership.

And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.

What do you see as the difference between being FI and self-employed (while raking in billions), being FI and self-employed (while raking in millions), and being FI and self-employed (while raking in hundreds of thousands)? Calling yourself retired?

It's a bit unfair to delete so much context.
One point is simply that Buffett and others don't consider themselves retired.  This really is the IRP all over again.

Fair enough...here's your full post:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  If you want to play IRP, go right ahead, but the rest of your post makes very little sense.  I have no idea how you've concluded that he is committing "intellectual dishonesty" when he clearly talks about how he makes money with houses, with the blog, and with other things.  That's the exact opposite of dishonesty.The idea of being flexible upon "ER" is also well discussed, both in terms of spending habits and side gigs.  And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.  I've never heard Buffett refer to himself as 'retired', though absoltuely everyone would agree he's FI.

I agree with you re: Buffett, etc, not calling themselves retired, but words don't get to mean what we want them to mean just because we're tired of how most people are using them. If MMM woke up and called himself a velociraptor, which he defined as someone who was FI and made lots of money while self-employed, that could work in his head and perhaps in his home if his family agreed to it, but the rest of the world would continue to use the actual definition of the word. Outside of his definition (and that shared by a number of folks here), retirement doesn't mean velociraptor. I don't mind if he keeps his definition; I'm just explaining why I don't agree with it, and why it isn't one that's going to make sense to the majority of people outside of this forum.

[tobitonic]

Do we accept the premise that "retirement" is something that the individual in question gets to decide what that means to them? Independently of whether or not someone's math works such that their finances are sustainable in retirement based on SWR's and such, who would we be to tell someone they WEREN'T actually retired, and why should they care what anyone else thinks?

Certainly! But while we can freely choose how we personally define words, we don't get to choose how everyone else does. I don't get to redefine epithets, for example, and then feign confusion when people become offended. This is precisely what I meant about intellectual dishonesty earlier.

[nereo]

More than anyone else in this thread, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with respect to a.) retirement and b.) spending.

If MMM is "retired", so is Mark Zuckerberg.

And yes, the whole "business expense" stuff is part of why my wife has always found the MMM persona untrustworthy, and it's directly tied to the intellectual dishonesty about being retired.

He hit FI but still likes making money, but self-employment blogs don't draw nearly as much attention as early retirement blogs. By the same token, he hit FI but still likes to travel and get access to things that, quite frankly, cost money. Spending money on those things undercuts the message that you don't need to spend money to really enjoy life, and it also undercuts the brandable tagline of how awesome he lives for (insert half median HHI figure here) a year.

The solution to both issues is to pursue one aggressive self-employment scheme after another, earmark income and expenses as business transactions, and barter your time and work for things you want that would normally cost money. You then get to refer to yourself as retired, travel the world for "free", and champion your low income and expenses.

I don't mind any of this per se; I just think he could do it all without the convoluted semantics and he'd still have a ton of readership.

And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.

What do you see as the difference between being FI and self-employed (while raking in billions), being FI and self-employed (while raking in millions), and being FI and self-employed (while raking in hundreds of thousands)? Calling yourself retired?

It's a bit unfair to delete so much context.
One point is simply that Buffett and others don't consider themselves retired.  This really is the IRP all over again.

Fair enough...here's your full post:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  If you want to play IRP, go right ahead, but the rest of your post makes very little sense.  I have no idea how you've concluded that he is committing "intellectual dishonesty" when he clearly talks about how he makes money with houses, with the blog, and with other things.  That's the exact opposite of dishonesty.The idea of being flexible upon "ER" is also well discussed, both in terms of spending habits and side gigs.  And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.  I've never heard Buffett refer to himself as 'retired', though absoltuely everyone would agree he's FI.

I agree with you re: Buffett, etc, not calling themselves retired, but words don't get to mean what we want them to mean just because we're tired of how most people are using them. If MMM woke up and called himself a velociraptor, which he defined as someone who was FI and made lots of money while self-employed, that could work in his head and perhaps in his home if his family agreed to it, but the rest of the world would continue to use the actual definition of the word. Outside of his definition (and that shared by a number of folks here), retirement doesn't mean velociraptor. I don't mind if he keeps his definition; I'm just explaining why I don't agree with it, and why it isn't one that's going to make sense to the majority of people outside of this forum.

Ok, well without further devolving into other dinosaurs, what is your common definition of retired?

If anyone who ever earns money is disqualified, then virtually everyone I've ever known doesn't count.  It seems like eventually people want to pay you to do things you do anyway.
If it's a matter of how much you earn, then what is the threshold? I've seen plenty of people consult and pick up a pretty penny.
If it's about time, how many hours per year can you do things for pay?
If it's a question of age, when is too young?

Then there's all the surrogate questions. Like, can a person retire for several years and then un-retire for six months... Of was his or her initial retirement a failure? Unemployment? A self sabbatical?
Also, what if you are just doing something for fun, like writing a blog, and then suddenly your trickle of money becomes a firehose of cash... Are you not retired for all those years, or just the ones that are profitable?  There are no easy answers if you start putting conditions on the term "retired"

Therefor, the only real qualifications for me are the following:
1) does the person have enough money to not need to work again, and
2) is the person doing things because that is what the want to do, regardless of pay.

That's just me. Ymmv

EDIT:  Fixed a number of typos and auto-correct snafus.  (the results of typing too late on a too small screen).

[Thalassa]

I agree with FenderBender. Just because you're FI doesn't mean anything you do is now defined as retirement. There are thousands of CEOs and VPs of companies with millions in the bank who continue working and earning more millions. They don't need the money, but they are certainly working.

Pete isn't retired, IMO. He is self-employed. He also is FI, which means he can choose the work he wants to do and can choose not to work if he wants. Right now, he is still working. I'm not being IRP--if he considers himself retired, fine with me. However, if I were doing what he does, I certainly would call it work.

He also doesn't really live on 24K a year. He could--which is the point of his message--but right now, he doesn't. "Trading" work for trips to Hawaii is the same thing as trading work for dollars, and then spending dollars on a trip. Calling it a business expense and then claiming he didn't spend anything is bogus. His income and expenses are both higher than 24K (and I am not counting the blog $).

None of this invalidates his message about living on less, identifying what's important, and really thinking through your life. I just don't see why people have to act like every single thing he does is the pure, ideal MMM way, and make excuses and justifications for the way that one person lives.

Ok, what should Pete be doing that would actually count as retirement? Go fishing? Well, there's plenty of commercial fishermen out there and he's getting food from it, which is worth money, so it must be work.

Well, if being FI means you're retired, then Jamie Dimond and Warren Buffet and Tim Cook are all retired too, because they work hard and obviously don't need the money. That's the logical extreme of your argument. That point of view is just as logical (and just extreme, and hence just as useless) as the POV that bending over to pick up a $100 bill is working.

I don't consider MMM retired because he trades work for things of monetary value, like the vacation in Hawaii. He just cuts out money as the medium of exchange, but he's still trading his time and labor for something he wants that he would otherwise have to pay cash for. He is self-employed, he is free from the rat race, his life is probably awesome, and that's all great. I think that you (and others) have adopted the word "retirement" as a sacred thing and are now trying to fit whatever Pete does into the "retirement" box. I just accept that his ideas can be awesome and life-changing even if he isn't always living them himself.

As I said, if you and he want to consider him retired, fine with me.

More than anyone else in this thread, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with respect to a.) retirement and b.) spending.

If MMM is "retired", so is Mark Zuckerberg.

And yes, the whole "business expense" stuff is part of why my wife has always found the MMM persona untrustworthy, and it's directly tied to the intellectual dishonesty about being retired.

He hit FI but still likes making money, but self-employment blogs don't draw nearly as much attention as early retirement blogs. By the same token, he hit FI but still likes to travel and get access to things that, quite frankly, cost money. Spending money on those things undercuts the message that you don't need to spend money to really enjoy life, and it also undercuts the brandable tagline of how awesome he lives for (insert half median HHI figure here) a year.

The solution to both issues is to pursue one aggressive self-employment scheme after another, earmark income and expenses as business transactions, and barter your time and work for things you want that would normally cost money. You then get to refer to yourself as retired, travel the world for "free", and champion your low income and expenses.

I don't mind any of this per se; I just think he could do it all without the convoluted semantics and he'd still have a ton of readership.

Tobitonic totally nailed it. His summation of the "intellectual dishonesty" above compounded with the exceedingly unflattering personal portrait in the NYer has squelched the magic for me. Time for new version of escapism from the daily grind.

[Midwest]

I agree with FenderBender. Just because you're FI doesn't mean anything you do is now defined as retirement. There are thousands of CEOs and VPs of companies with millions in the bank who continue working and earning more millions. They don't need the money, but they are certainly working.

Pete isn't retired, IMO. He is self-employed. He also is FI, which means he can choose the work he wants to do and can choose not to work if he wants. Right now, he is still working. I'm not being IRP--if he considers himself retired, fine with me. However, if I were doing what he does, I certainly would call it work.

He also doesn't really live on 24K a year. He could--which is the point of his message--but right now, he doesn't. "Trading" work for trips to Hawaii is the same thing as trading work for dollars, and then spending dollars on a trip. Calling it a business expense and then claiming he didn't spend anything is bogus. His income and expenses are both higher than 24K (and I am not counting the blog $).

None of this invalidates his message about living on less, identifying what's important, and really thinking through your life. I just don't see why people have to act like every single thing he does is the pure, ideal MMM way, and make excuses and justifications for the way that one person lives.

Ok, what should Pete be doing that would actually count as retirement? Go fishing? Well, there's plenty of commercial fishermen out there and he's getting food from it, which is worth money, so it must be work.

Well, if being FI means you're retired, then Jamie Dimond and Warren Buffet and Tim Cook are all retired too, because they work hard and obviously don't need the money. That's the logical extreme of your argument. That point of view is just as logical (and just extreme, and hence just as useless) as the POV that bending over to pick up a $100 bill is working.

I don't consider MMM retired because he trades work for things of monetary value, like the vacation in Hawaii. He just cuts out money as the medium of exchange, but he's still trading his time and labor for something he wants that he would otherwise have to pay cash for. He is self-employed, he is free from the rat race, his life is probably awesome, and that's all great. I think that you (and others) have adopted the word "retirement" as a sacred thing and are now trying to fit whatever Pete does into the "retirement" box. I just accept that his ideas can be awesome and life-changing even if he isn't always living them himself.

As I said, if you and he want to consider him retired, fine with me.

More than anyone else in this thread, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with respect to a.) retirement and b.) spending.

If MMM is "retired", so is Mark Zuckerberg.

And yes, the whole "business expense" stuff is part of why my wife has always found the MMM persona untrustworthy, and it's directly tied to the intellectual dishonesty about being retired.

He hit FI but still likes making money, but self-employment blogs don't draw nearly as much attention as early retirement blogs. By the same token, he hit FI but still likes to travel and get access to things that, quite frankly, cost money. Spending money on those things undercuts the message that you don't need to spend money to really enjoy life, and it also undercuts the brandable tagline of how awesome he lives for (insert half median HHI figure here) a year.

The solution to both issues is to pursue one aggressive self-employment scheme after another, earmark income and expenses as business transactions, and barter your time and work for things you want that would normally cost money. You then get to refer to yourself as retired, travel the world for "free", and champion your low income and expenses.

I don't mind any of this per se; I just think he could do it all without the convoluted semantics and he'd still have a ton of readership.

If we call it financially independent are you fine with that?  I don't think the majority of the populace  understands what financial freedom is.  Retirement has a much better ring to it.

The premise of the blog (or maybe the meaning to me) is live way below your means so you can choose what to do with your time free rather than being enslaved to things. 

The majority of the populace has  1 (or 2) car loans, student loans, a recreational payment of some sort, mortgage, consumer debt and maybe some student loans.  They can't get off the work treadmill because their debt (and things) has enslaved them.

If you follow that premise and accumulate some wealth rather than spending all you make and more, you have freedom to choose to work (or not to work).  He calls it retirement and chooses to work some.  I don't know how much or how little he works, don't care what he calls it and am not interested in proving (or disproving) every aspect of his life .  Doesn't seem like he's killing it, but what do I know (or care).  Also seem like he works on what he wants, when he wants.  How many people can do that?

The premise is sound.  I think many are getting lost in the semantics and the minutia.  I didn't retire at 30, but my nest egg is getting big enough that we are starting to worry lot less.  There's a lot of freedom and peace of mind in that alone.  I may choose to work for 15 more years, but we are fast nearing the point where it's a choice.  Having choices is huge.

[tobitonic]

More than anyone else in this thread, I believe you've hit the nail on the head with respect to a.) retirement and b.) spending.

If MMM is "retired", so is Mark Zuckerberg.

And yes, the whole "business expense" stuff is part of why my wife has always found the MMM persona untrustworthy, and it's directly tied to the intellectual dishonesty about being retired.

He hit FI but still likes making money, but self-employment blogs don't draw nearly as much attention as early retirement blogs. By the same token, he hit FI but still likes to travel and get access to things that, quite frankly, cost money. Spending money on those things undercuts the message that you don't need to spend money to really enjoy life, and it also undercuts the brandable tagline of how awesome he lives for (insert half median HHI figure here) a year.

The solution to both issues is to pursue one aggressive self-employment scheme after another, earmark income and expenses as business transactions, and barter your time and work for things you want that would normally cost money. You then get to refer to yourself as retired, travel the world for "free", and champion your low income and expenses.

I don't mind any of this per se; I just think he could do it all without the convoluted semantics and he'd still have a ton of readership.

And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.

What do you see as the difference between being FI and self-employed (while raking in billions), being FI and self-employed (while raking in millions), and being FI and self-employed (while raking in hundreds of thousands)? Calling yourself retired?

It's a bit unfair to delete so much context.
One point is simply that Buffett and others don't consider themselves retired.  This really is the IRP all over again.

Fair enough...here's your full post:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  If you want to play IRP, go right ahead, but the rest of your post makes very little sense.  I have no idea how you've concluded that he is committing "intellectual dishonesty" when he clearly talks about how he makes money with houses, with the blog, and with other things.  That's the exact opposite of dishonesty.The idea of being flexible upon "ER" is also well discussed, both in terms of spending habits and side gigs.  And equating this to Zuck, Buffett or any other wealthy individual is just non-sensical.  I've never heard Buffett refer to himself as 'retired', though absoltuely everyone would agree he's FI.

I agree with you re: Buffett, etc, not calling themselves retired, but words don't get to mean what we want them to mean just because we're tired of how most people are using them. If MMM woke up and called himself a velociraptor, which he defined as someone who was FI and made lots of money while self-employed, that could work in his head and perhaps in his home if his family agreed to it, but the rest of the world would continue to use the actual definition of the word. Outside of his definition (and that shared by a number of folks here), retirement doesn't mean velociraptor. I don't mind if he keeps his definition; I'm just explaining why I don't agree with it, and why it isn't one that's going to make sense to the majority of people outside of this forum.

Ok, well without further devolving into other dinosaurs, what is your common definition of retired?

If anyone who ever earns money is disqualified, then virtually everyone I've ever known doesn't count.  It seems like eventually people want to pay you to do things you do anyway
If it's a matter of how much you earn, then what is the threshold? I've seen plenty of people consult and pick up a pretty penny.
If it's about time, how many hours per year can you do things for pay?
If it's a question of age, when is too young?

Then there's all the surrogate questions. Like, can a person retire for several years and then u retire for six months... Of was his or her initial retirement a failure? Unemployment? A self sabbatical?
Also, what if you are just doing something for fun, like writing a blog, and then suddenly your trickle of money becomes a firehouse of cash... Are you no retired for all those years, or just the ones that are profitable?  There are no easy answers if you start putting conditions on god term

Therefor, the only real qualifications for me are the following: does the person have enough money to not need to work again, and is the person doing things because that is what the want to do, regardless of pay.

That's just me. Ymmv

Excellent question!

To me, it means being FI and not actively pursuing money (i.e., being paid) afterward.

The FI part knocks out things like sabbaticals and unemployment.

If you've got money coming in, I'd say you're semi-retired.

If that money's coming in from self-employment, I'd say you're self-employed.

Drop the income source(s), I'd call you fully retired.

Working full-time and being paid to do so? I'd say you're working, whether self-employed or not.

So consultation while FI for me would fall under semi-to-no retirement while self-employed. I totally agree someone can retire and then come out of retirement; to me, that's what Jakob did back in the ERE days when he went back to work full time as an analyst in Chicago, regardless of whatever name he was calling it. Regarding the blog example, that for me falls back under the self-employment umbrella once it starts making money.

None of these examples mean a person faked their retirement or didn't have enough money to make it for the rest of their lives, etc. I think a lot of folks get up in arms about the implication that FI folks who are doing random jobs aren't retired because they see it as an intimation that the math didn't work. And maybe that is how a lot of the "you're not retired!" folks see it. To me, it's just that there's a difference between being FI and being FI and not doing things to receive additional money; that second one is what I see as retirement. Once you start spending time to earn money (or its equivalent in favors, etc), you're back on the continuum of semi-retirement to full employment, just with the FI perk.

And to add a disclaimer: I'm a fan of a lot of parts of the MMM vibe; I come from the ERE school (I read that blog when it was just getting started and it resonated with me a lot; my plan as a bachelor was to buy a Lowe's shed and live in it with low income and low expenses), so the whole MMM thing was already a spendypantsish theory for me, but I dig it. I'm just poking at a few parts I disagree with. The overall message is a very positive one that I'd like to see spread far and wide.

[FiveSigmas]

There is this other magical way you can buy large home renovation items without even needing to own a car at all... Just have them delivered.

I was going to bring this up.  I could swear I read that he has the big purchases delivered by the hardware store to the site (and I thought for free).

Yeah, I could have sworn the same thing. I had a quick look, and indeed here's at least one reference:

The other challenge is the odd feeling of suddenly becoming one of the biggest consumers in town. Almost every day I have to buy stuff. Tools, materials, and supplies are needed in abundance for a project like this, and so I’ve spent about $20,000 in the past three months. On top of all that steel, there is a huge pile of engineered lumber taking up most of the back driveway and more deliveries on the way.
...

If you go to the Pro desk at Home Depot or another retailer and tell them you are building a house, they will often offer some fine incentives on your larger orders. 10% off, free delivery, and price matching even on obscure items like custom windows from a brand they don’t even carry.  In my area, if you have a building permit in hand you can get a reduction in the sales tax rate as well, saving hundreds more.

[JLR]

Good sleuthing!

The whole 'low mileage and tools' thing reminded me of when we first started renovating our house and we had a plasterer come in to help us with the first room. He realised he would need a ladder and said he would go home to grab one. I knew he had walked to our house that morning, so offered to drive him the 1 mile to his place, so he could bring it back. He said "no, it's ok. I like walking". And he walked home, grabbed his ladder and carried it back to our place. Not even a bike trailer in sight.

[shelivesthedream]

I am also surprised at quite how high his female readership is. He covers topics (cars, DIY, references to engineering career) in a tone (swearing, aggressive) that doesn't typically feature in media aimed at women. I am pleased, though. And I do recall reading somewhere once that personal finance (rather than investing) advice is generally consumed more by women. I know that I have a self-centred bias on the internet where I tend to assume anonymous people on blogs and forums are women (because I am one) until I find out otherwise. I wouldn't blame MMM for doing the same thing.

[nereo]

Excellent question!

To me, it means being FI and not actively pursuing money (i.e., being paid) afterward.

The FI part knocks out things like sabbaticals and unemployment.

If you've got money coming in, I'd say you're semi-retired.

If that money's coming in from self-employment, I'd say you're self-employed.

Drop the income source(s), I'd call you fully retired.

Working full-time and being paid to do so? I'd say you're working, whether self-employed or not.

So consultation while FI for me would fall under semi-to-no retirement while self-employed. I totally agree someone can retire and then come out of retirement; to me, that's what Jakob did back in the ERE days when he went back to work full time as an analyst in Chicago, regardless of whatever name he was calling it. Regarding the blog example, that for me falls back under the self-employment umbrella once it starts making money.

None of these examples mean a person faked their retirement or didn't have enough money to make it for the rest of their lives, etc. I think a lot of folks get up in arms about the implication that FI folks who are doing random jobs aren't retired because they see it as an intimation that the math didn't work. And maybe that is how a lot of the "you're not retired!" folks see it. To me, it's just that there's a difference between being FI and being FI and not doing things to receive additional money; that second one is what I see as retirement. Once you start spending time to earn money (or its equivalent in favors, etc), you're back on the continuum of semi-retirement to full employment, just with the FI perk.

And to add a disclaimer: I'm a fan of a lot of parts of the MMM vibe; I come from the ERE school (I read that blog when it was just getting started and it resonated with me a lot; my plan as a bachelor was to buy a Lowe's shed and live in it with low income and low expenses), so the whole MMM thing was already a spendypantsish theory for me, but I dig it. I'm just poking at a few parts I disagree with. The overall message is a very positive one that I'd like to see spread far and wide.

Ok, well I don't disagree with your definitions per-se, my two underlying points here are that 1) almost everyone IME gets some form of compensation at some point when they are supposedly retired, and 2) once you are FI (which itself can be a very squishy definition - e.g. is someone with 25x expenses really FI or just deluding themselves about future market returns) whether you are "retired" or self-employed/semi-employed/sporadically working etc. is largely based on the individual's perception. Someone who hits the FI/25x threshold but keeps working part time because they aren't convinced of the future is inherently different from someone who has the same level of FI but paints watercolors every sunny day and sells them once a month at the farmer's market because that's what he/she has always wanted to do.
Who am I to come in and say "well he's retired but she isn't" (or "neither of you are really retired")?

Also - perhaps i missed the explanation but you stil didn't explain what was intellectually dishonest about how MMM portrayed himself.  He's talked a great deal about how he likes rehabbing houses and how he's earned money doing so.

A few other examples regarding why setting limits on "retirement" is a bit silly
1) In HS our swim coach was a "retired" high-ranking naval officer who just really wanted to coach.  Teacher's unions what they were, the school was required to pay him.  He ceremonially donated his entire salary back to the athletic department each year.  Was he really "retired"?

2) my father recently "retired" from being a doctor at age 68.  Now he's being invited to give talks to all sorts of groups about care for aging parents.  The talks almost always involve dinner (either at a restaurant or catered) and twice they've put him up in a hotel when he had to drive over an hour to get there.  Is he "retired"?

3) My uncle got injured on the job and took a buy-out settlement in his late 50s and hasn't had a paycheck since.  Now his wife is the mayor of a small town.  He's helped manage her campaigns and goes to many of the functions.  Technically he gets paid nothing but his wife has a nice salary and he does get perks.  So is he "retired"?

4) my old landlord was somewhat of a recluse who had no job and had no interest in fixing anything. He lived off a combination of my rent and his savings and gave me a reduced rate under the agreement that I would take care of most any problem that came up (and deduct the cost of materials).  Is that "retired" (or just unemployed)?

If this all sounds a bit like semantics, that's because it is.  As soon as you start placing restrictions on when other people can consider themselves retired things get very sticky, and people that most people would agree are retired suddenly don't fit the definition(s).  If you are busy litmus-testing people about whether they are "retired" or "FI" I believe you've missed a key point of this blog, which is that it's relatively easy to reach a level of continual cash surpluses if you are willing to forgo a lot of the BS and avoid the traps most of society falls into.
My personal take - if you have a perpetual cash surplus and you doing what you want regardless of the money or benefits (as in, you'd continue to do it even if you weren't paid anything at all), then you can consider yourself retired if you so wish. If your id and ego would prefer the terms "self-employed" or "entrepreneur" or "semi-retired" that's fine too.

[BBub]

Semantics - exactly.  Why should we give a shit what it's called?

The underlying MMM message does not change: LBYM > Save money > invest > Achieve FI > do whatever you'd like.

Retirement is not even the primary message of the blog- it's just the hook.  The primary message is to become FI then decide what you want to do from a position of strength.  And don't trash the planet.

[Karen Parker Feld]

I've read most of MMMs posts, and have been a long-time reader of the New Yorker.  These are my absolute favorite reads, and I read all the time.  Both offer powerful ideas and phenomenal writing.  I think Paumgarten did a good job of conveying MMMs message, without sounding like either a disciple or a skeptic.   Very few can gather the following that MMM has.  He is authentic, brilliant and ahead of his time.  His success is well-deserved an in no way detracts from the power of his message.  The cultural moment has arrived, and MMM has been an important part of it.

[AdrianC]

Our boys are into Pokémon, which means I am too, and Pokémon is even more bullshit than Magic. Older cards are not legal for tournament play, so no $20 boxes of 1000 cards from Amazon. And to be competitive you have to buy $20 and up "Mega-EX" boxes. It's a total racket.

Just FYI, the majority of MTG constructed tournaments are "Standard" format, meaning only cards in sets released within the last 2 years. There are other formats (modern, vintage, legacy, block) which allow older cards, but Standard was created so that the game is always changing over time.

Sure. We started with cards we bought for $1 at a yard sale. We bought a few more cards new. Then we went to a game store to play and found out about the "2 years" rule. They let kids play with whatever they bring, since it is for fun. It's pretty demoralizing to lose to everybody, though. Pokémon is a game of deck building skill, playing skill, chance and money. Without the money spend the other three aren't enough to win, even at elementary school level.

We were talking about this issue yesterday. My oldest said he thought the most fun part of Pokémon was opening a new booster pack and getting a good card. That's not good for a mini-Mustachian.

I'd rather be outside with them playing Nerf, basketball or digging holes in the ground.

[Sweetloveginger]

I've always had a hunch he was sexist.  There are sexist undertones in some of his posts.  Other bloggers and posters have mentioned this as well.  They say they feel bad for his wife.  One thing really struck me from reading the article.  He discusses the makeup of his readership and says:

"More females than I thought."

Yep. I knew it all along.

LOLWUT?

He's not retired.  He's selfish.  His message of saving and not spending is dilluted by his income.  And now he's sexist too. 
Oh good! 

Strange dynamic going on in this thread.  Truly strange.  You all need a hobby or something.

Easy for you to say.   Are you a woman?  I ask because I wonder WHY he is surprised so many women follow the blog.  Does he think women aren't good with money?  Can't save?  Don't use the Internet?  Why?

Would it have been okay if he said he's surprised so many (race besides white) read the blog?

I am a woman and I think your original statement is ridiculous.

He is surprised because he should be. I don't expect to find a ton of women frequenting a money saving forum run by a nerdy, analytical type man. I expect to see them over on moneysavingmom.com or whatever where the website is frilly and girly and relates to their sensibilities more. Whether society likes to admit it or not the majority of men and women are in fact different.

[Philociraptor]

Our boys are into Pokémon, which means I am too, and Pokémon is even more bullshit than Magic. Older cards are not legal for tournament play, so no $20 boxes of 1000 cards from Amazon. And to be competitive you have to buy $20 and up "Mega-EX" boxes. It's a total racket.

Just FYI, the majority of MTG constructed tournaments are "Standard" format, meaning only cards in sets released within the last 2 years. There are other formats (modern, vintage, legacy, block) which allow older cards, but Standard was created so that the game is always changing over time.

Sure. We started with cards we bought for $1 at a yard sale. We bought a few more cards new. Then we went to a game store to play and found out about the "2 years" rule. They let kids play with whatever they bring, since it is for fun. It's pretty demoralizing to lose to everybody, though. Pokémon is a game of deck building skill, playing skill, chance and money. Without the money spend the other three aren't enough to win, even at elementary school level.

We were talking about this issue yesterday. My oldest said he thought the most fun part of Pokémon was opening a new booster pack and getting a good card. That's not good for a mini-Mustachian.

I'd rather be outside with them playing Nerf, basketball or digging holes in the ground.

Just FYI, this is not true of MTG. Any decent non-standard deck will likely trounce an average standard deck due to being able to use cards together that were never meant to be Standard at the same time. We used to have tournaments in my fraternity where your deck had to be worth less than $20 using a specific website. $20 to build a deck with 20+ years of cards.

[Vertical Mode]

Our boys are into Pokémon, which means I am too, and Pokémon is even more bullshit than Magic. Older cards are not legal for tournament play, so no $20 boxes of 1000 cards from Amazon. And to be competitive you have to buy $20 and up "Mega-EX" boxes. It's a total racket.

Just FYI, the majority of MTG constructed tournaments are "Standard" format, meaning only cards in sets released within the last 2 years. There are other formats (modern, vintage, legacy, block) which allow older cards, but Standard was created so that the game is always changing over time.

Sure. We started with cards we bought for $1 at a yard sale. We bought a few more cards new. Then we went to a game store to play and found out about the "2 years" rule. They let kids play with whatever they bring, since it is for fun. It's pretty demoralizing to lose to everybody, though. Pokémon is a game of deck building skill, playing skill, chance and money. Without the money spend the other three aren't enough to win, even at elementary school level.

We were talking about this issue yesterday. My oldest said he thought the most fun part of Pokémon was opening a new booster pack and getting a good card. That's not good for a mini-Mustachian.

I'd rather be outside with them playing Nerf, basketball or digging holes in the ground.

Just FYI, this is not true of MTG. Any decent non-standard deck will likely trounce an average standard deck due to being able to use cards together that were never meant to be Standard at the same time. We used to have tournaments in my fraternity where your deck had to be worth less than $20 using a specific website. $20 to build a deck with 20+ years of cards.

I never had a set cap, because I came by most of my MTG cards organically over time, but yeah that's basically how I built my decks. By theme (Mercenaries, Goblins) or by color (Green, White, etc.) and with cards spanning all releases. There really is no upper limit to what one can spend building a deck, but you can play to about a .500 record without breaking the bank to build a juggernaut of a deck. Especially if everyone around you is reasonable and does something similar ;-)

[AdrianC]

Just FYI, this is not true of MTG. Any decent non-standard deck will likely trounce an average standard deck due to being able to use cards together that were never meant to be Standard at the same time. We used to have tournaments in my fraternity where your deck had to be worth less than $20 using a specific website. $20 to build a deck with 20+ years of cards.

Sorry, I missed your MTG reference in the first post. The boys have just started with Magic. They are very interested in the "1000 cards for $20" idea!

[nereo]

Just FYI, this is not true of MTG. Any decent non-standard deck will likely trounce an average standard deck due to being able to use cards together that were never meant to be Standard at the same time. We used to have tournaments in my fraternity where your deck had to be worth less than $20 using a specific website. $20 to build a deck with 20+ years of cards.

Sorry, I missed your MTG reference in the first post. The boys have just started with Magic. They are very interested in the "1000 cards for $20" idea!

Stupid question, but is MTG (which I understand is Magic the Gathering) the same as "Magic" here, or is the former an offshoot of the latter?

[Philociraptor]

Stupid question, but is MTG (which I understand is Magic the Gathering) the same as "Magic" here, or is the former an offshoot of the latter?

"MTG" and "Magic" are interchangeable, same game.

[Tim1965]

Semantics - exactly.  Why should we give a shit what it's called?

The underlying MMM message does not change: LBYM > Save money > invest > Achieve FI > do whatever you'd like.

Retirement is not even the primary message of the blog- it's just the hook.  The primary message is to become FI then decide what you want to do from a position of strength.  And don't trash the planet.

Thank you, we have a winner.

[RetiredAt63]

I am also surprised at quite how high his female readership is. He covers topics (cars, DIY, references to engineering career) in a tone (swearing, aggressive) that doesn't typically feature in media aimed at women. I am pleased, though. And I do recall reading somewhere once that personal finance (rather than investing) advice is generally consumed more by women. I know that I have a self-centred bias on the internet where I tend to assume anonymous people on blogs and forums are women (because I am one) until I find out otherwise. I wouldn't blame MMM for doing the same thing.

Given the way some online men react to online women, it is not surprising that many of us choose neutral names and no avatar.  A few people on here were surprised when they found out I am a woman.

I am a woman and I think your original statement is ridiculous.

He is surprised because he should be. I don't expect to find a ton of women frequenting a money saving forum run by a nerdy, analytical type man. I expect to see them over on moneysavingmom.com or whatever where the website is frilly and girly and relates to their sensibilities more. Whether society likes to admit it or not the majority of men and women are in fact different.

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone, Homemaker magazine* found out many years ago that their female readership was really interested in big-picture stories more than the homemaker stuff that just goes round and round.

*Veiled Threat, The Hidden Power Of The Women Of Afghanistan : In 1997, Sally Armstrong, then editor-in-chief of Homemaker’s magazine, wrote an article about the women of Afghanistan and their lives under the misogynist Taliban regime. More than 9000 letters poured in from readers demanding that something be done to get these women out of bondage. Recently named as UNICEF’s special representative to Afghanistan, Armstrong has an insider’s view of the terror, abuse and misogyny the women and girls of Afghanistan have faced for more than two decades of civil war and, in particular, when the Taliban took over.

[nereo]

I am also surprised at quite how high his female readership is. He covers topics (cars, DIY, references to engineering career) in a tone (swearing, aggressive) that doesn't typically feature in media aimed at women. I am pleased, though. And I do recall reading somewhere once that personal finance (rather than investing) advice is generally consumed more by women. I know that I have a self-centred bias on the internet where I tend to assume anonymous people on blogs and forums are women (because I am one) until I find out otherwise. I wouldn't blame MMM for doing the same thing.

Given the way some online men react to online women, it is not surprising that many of us choose neutral names and no avatar.  A few people on here were surprised when they found out I am a woman.

Holy crap, you're a woman?  I tend to think of everyone here in relation to their avatar.  It might explain why I'm afraid of Sol, feel the need to wash my hands every time I speak with BrooklynGuy and assume Bracken_Joy is a potted plant in front of a laptop. Spork just creeps me out in general.  In the absence of an avatar they're just vaguely asexual sentient entities typing thoughts out somewhere in the ether. 

[iris lily]

I've read most of MMMs posts, and have been a long-time reader of the New Yorker.  These are my absolute favorite reads, and I read all the time.  Both offer powerful ideas and phenomenal writing.  I think Paumgarten did a good job of conveying MMMs message, without sounding like either a disciple or a skeptic.   Very few can gather the following that MMM has.  He is authentic, brilliant and ahead of his time.  His success is well-deserved an in no way detracts from the power of his message.  The cultural moment has arrived, and MMM has been an important part of it.

Hey, welcome to the cult! Haha. Seriously, glad to see your post.

[brooklynguy]

feel the need to wash my hands every time I speak with BrooklynGuy

I resent this blatantly unicellularist remark.

[zephyr911]

Tobitonic totally nailed it. His summation of the "intellectual dishonesty" above compounded with the exceedingly unflattering personal portrait in the NYer has squelched the magic for me. Time for new version of escapism from the daily grind.

Well, bye :P

[iris lily]

I am also surprised at quite how high his female readership is. He covers topics (cars, DIY, references to engineering career) in a tone (swearing, aggressive) that doesn't typically feature in media aimed at women. I am pleased, though. And I do recall reading somewhere once that personal finance (rather than investing) advice is generally consumed more by women. I know that I have a self-centred bias on the internet where I tend to assume anonymous people on blogs and forums are women (because I am one) until I find out otherwise. I wouldn't blame MMM for doing the same thing.

Given the way some online men react to online women, it is not surprising that many of us choose neutral names and no avatar.  A few people on here were surprised when they found out I am a woman.

I am a woman and I think your original statement is ridiculous.

He is surprised because he should be. I don't expect to find a ton of women frequenting a money saving forum run by a nerdy, analytical type man. I expect to see them over on moneysavingmom.com or whatever where the website is frilly and girly and relates to their sensibilities more. Whether society likes to admit it or not the majority of men and women are in fact different.

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone, Homemaker magazine* found out many years ago that their female readership was really interested in big-picture stories more than the homemaker stuff that just goes round and round.

*Veiled Threat, The Hidden Power Of The Women Of Afghanistan : In 1997, Sally Armstrong, then editor-in-chief of Homemaker’s magazine, wrote an article about the women of Afghanistan and their lives under the misogynist Taliban regime. More than 9000 letters poured in from readers demanding that something be done to get these women out of bondage. Recently named as UNICEF’s special representative to Afghanistan, Armstrong has an insider’s view of the terror, abuse and misogyny the women and girls of Afghanistan have faced for more than two decades of civil war and, in particular, when the Taliban took over.

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

[nereo]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Crap... another plant-turned-woman.  This day is ruining so many of my preconceived notions...

[pachnik]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Crap... another plant-turned-woman.  This day is ruining so many of my preconceived notions...

I am another plant-turned-woman.  :)

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

No offense, but many of you are bit shit insane.

[Dollar Slice]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Yep. I am a woman with a filthy fucking vocabulary and a very logical mind. And I've been using gender-neutral online monikers (on some sites, not all) since the 90s, after discovering as a teenager how obnoxious men can be online to young women they don't know. It's very noticeable how differently you get treated with a female user ID.

Also, after reading through this thread, I'm realizing how many of you have hilariously stupid stereotype ideas of what people are like in New York City... ;-)

[RetiredAt63]

Another one!  And here I just posted a lovely analytical discussion of stats and science on your journal!  Just for general consumption, the last advanced stats course I audited was about 50:50, and the TA's were grad students, 1 XX and 1 XY.  Engineering and science and math do not belong exclusively to the men.

I don't have an avatar, for exactly that reason.  Brooklyn Guy is protean. 

Given the way some online men react to online women, it is not surprising that many of us choose neutral names and no avatar.  A few people on here were surprised when they found out I am a woman.

Holy crap, you're a woman?  I tend to think of everyone here in relation to their avatar.  It might explain why I'm afraid of Sol, feel the need to wash my hands every time I speak with BrooklynGuy and assume Bracken_Joy is a potted plant in front of a laptop. Spork just creeps me out in general.  In the absence of an avatar they're just vaguely asexual sentient entities typing thoughts out somewhere in the ether.

[NoraLenderbee]

Semantics - exactly.  Why should we give a shit what it's called?

Yes, why are some people so insistent that anything MMM does must be defined as "retirement"? And that "retirement" means whatever they want it to mean?

[RyanAtTanagra]

Semantics - exactly.  Why should we give a shit what it's called?

Yes, why are some people so insistent that anything MMM does must be defined as "retirement"? And that "retirement" means whatever they want it to mean?

The problem isn't whether we think he's technically retired, it's the issue of him using that word and potentially losing a new reader by them saying 'he's not retired! (as I define the term)'.  I don't think we can argue that MMM doesn't fit into the 'common' persons definition of retirement, as we see the objection constantly any time he gets talked about outside of the ERE/MMM community.  So with that being the case, the question is would the message be better delivered to new readers if he avoided using the word 'retired'?  Maybe, but the problem is most people don't really understand the significance of, or care about, the term 'financially independent', even though that would technically be more accurate.

[arebelspy]

I think he gains more readers by claiming to be retired than he loses by them later saying "no he's not!"--in other words, draw them in, and expose them to the message.  I don't think that's his primary motivation, but I wouldn't worry about your concern, RAT.

[daymare]

So my old financial advisor sent me an email this morning with a scan of the MMM New Yorker article, and the message 'you were (and likely remain) ahead of your time'.  Hah.  He deemed MMM 'interesting' when I told him about the blog and its influence on me when we worked together 3-4 years ago.  But he's definitely a mainstream advisor (as are his clients) - high income, high spending, typical retirement age.  So it's neat to see broader exposure.

On the other hand, I hated the article and have no interest in sharing on facebook or anything (really agree with the post by Frankie's Girl).  MMM was definitely painted as rather unpleasant (how fun to have someone constantly harp on the stupid spending of others) and anxious and negative.  Pretty different from the impression I get from the blog.  Ah well, the ideas are brilliant and have completely changed my life, and that remains true regardless of Pete's personality and personal life.

[RyanAtTanagra]

I think he gains more readers by claiming to be retired than he loses by them later saying "no he's not!"--in other words, draw them in, and expose them to the message.  I don't think that's his primary motivation, but I wouldn't worry about your concern, RAT.

I tend to agree.  The people that insist on finding a reason to discount the message would still do so.

[Sweetloveginger]

I've always had a hunch he was sexist.  There are sexist undertones in some of his posts.  Other bloggers and posters have mentioned this as well.  They say they feel bad for his wife.  One thing really struck me from reading the article.  He discusses the makeup of his readership and says:

"More females than I thought."

Yep. I knew it all along.

LOLWUT?

He's not retired.  He's selfish.  His message of saving and not spending is dilluted by his income.  And now he's sexist too. 
Oh good! 

Strange dynamic going on in this thread.  Truly strange.  You all need a hobby or something.

Easy for you to say.   Are you a woman?  I ask because I wonder WHY he is surprised so many women follow the blog.  Does he think women aren't good with money?  Can't save?  Don't use the Internet?  Why?

Would it have been okay if he said he's surprised so many (race besides white) read the blog?

I am a woman and I think your original statement is ridiculous.

He is surprised because he should be. I don't expect to find a ton of women frequenting a money saving forum run by a nerdy, analytical type man. I expect to see them over on moneysavingmom.com or whatever where the website is frilly and girly and relates to their sensibilities more. Whether society likes to admit it or not the majority of men and women are in fact different.

I am a woman and think your statement is ridiculous.  Many of the women here and IRL have the exact same interests, jobs (and yes blue collar dirty jobs or engineering jobs), hobbies and financial strategies as guys do. Many of us aren't moms or into girly or frilly things exclusively. Some of us even drive trucks (oh the horror!!) and work on them and our home repairs as well. To make such a blanket statement as you just did is beyond sexist.

As for MMM being sexist, meh...I don't get that vibe at all. He seems to be pretty open minded about women being strong, capable and financially savvy. I believe there was a blog post on that awhile ago.

I didn’t mean that all women are girly and frilly I meant that a large population of them are, otherwise those mommy blogs wouldn’t be so popular. I was more commenting on the fact that MMM’s surprise at the stat’s shouldn’t be viewed as sexist because I thought the same thing.

[nereo]

Another one!  And here I just posted a lovely analytical discussion of stats and science on your journal!  Just for general consumption, the last advanced stats course I audited was about 50:50, and the TA's were grad students, 1 XX and 1 XY.  Engineering and science and math do not belong exclusively to the men.

I don't have an avatar, for exactly that reason.  Brooklyn Guy is protean. 

Given the way some online men react to online women, it is not surprising that many of us choose neutral names and no avatar.  A few people on here were surprised when they found out I am a woman.

Holy crap, you're a woman?  I tend to think of everyone here in relation to their avatar.  It might explain why I'm afraid of Sol, feel the need to wash my hands every time I speak with BrooklynGuy and assume Bracken_Joy is a potted plant in front of a laptop. Spork just creeps me out in general.  In the absence of an avatar they're just vaguely asexual sentient entities typing thoughts out somewhere in the ether.

I really did appreciate the comment on my journal, btw.  To be clear I really don't give much thought about whether a poster is XX or XY unless it's keenly obvious (e.g. people who use their 'real' headshot as their avatar, like 'rebs... pretty sure he's a dude) and I'm largely just having fun here calling people plants etc. 

As for the gender composition in our department (biology), it's slightly XX heavy at the undergrad level and very XX heavy at the graduate student level.  In terms of tenure-track professors it's the reverse, 13 out of the 18 full time faculty are male. 

[purple monkey]

Semantics - exactly.  Why should we give a shit what it's called?

Yes, why are some people so insistent that anything MMM does must be defined as "retirement"? And that "retirement" means whatever they want it to mean?

"Hi there. If we haven’t met, my name is Mr. Money Mustache. I’m the freaky financial magician who retired along with a lovely wife at age 30 in order to start a family, as well as start living a great life."

Maybe because Retire Early is part of the FIRE code.

[zephyr911]

No offense, but many of you are bit shit insane.

You mean "batshit"? ;)

[nereo]

"Hi there. If we haven’t met, my name is Mr. Money Mustache. I’m the freaky financial magician who retired along with a lovely wife at age 30 in order to start a family, as well as start living a great life."

where did you find this quote?

[exmmmer]

I think MMM could alleviate these concerns (I share some similar concerns with running a for-profit anti-consumerism blog) by running the blog as a nonprofit or foundation. As a tax lawyer, that is how I would advise MMM (disclaimer: I am not MMM's tax lawyer and nothing here constitutes tax/legal advice). This method seems optimal for the following reasons:

<snip>

(3) Tax benefits. Even using tax optimization strategies (discussed in MMM's most recent blog post), his tax bill is going to be quite large with 400k/year earnings. Even a 15% effective tax rate is 60k/year in taxes! He could avoid almost of these taxes by establishing a nonprofit

Losing $60K by leaving the affiliate ad business in a for-profit tax structure doesn't seem very Mustachian or badass. Unless, of course, he is doing so because he wants to make a profit. Maybe he needs more money set aside for the future when he is actually finished running businesses and, oh, you know, *retires* :) But then if *that* is true, why say that you intend to donate it? If that's the case, why toss $60K out the window first?