At which point of FIRE is it not worth working for money anymore?

[helloyou]

As I'm back to work during this lockdown period and back to saving.. I was wondering at which point is it not worth working anymore for money?

The typical FIRE indicator is something in the line of 3-4% withdrawal rate. Meaning if you have a lifestyle needing $40k/year, at 4% you need about $1M net worth to reach fire. With today inflation fear, I'd say it probably need to be closer to 3% or $1.3M

Now, let say you are earning $80k/year after tax. On a $1M net worth, you're still growing your net worth by 10%/year which is quite good. Something you'd only expect to get from a good year in the stock market. So really it would worth working to grow the portfolio if you strive for some more security.

However, let say you have already a $5M net worth, a year of working would only grow your net worth by 1.6%. You really wouldn't want to work for this money at that level (exception if it's a work of love of course for which money doesn't matter)

So, what is the threshold for which it's not worth working anymore?

I'm thinking the threshold is probably in the 4% gain/year. So if I earn $80k/year after tax, it's not worth keep working for money once my net worth reaches $2M. Because the gain would become too tiny for that.

It sounds like a good framework to decide whether it worth it to keep working or not. It could be a good indicator to decide when to stop between the lifestyle need (ie. needing $40k/year to live) and the ability to compound your net worth for more security against a downturn.

[former player]

If you have reached your FIRE number then objectively it's not worth working for money at all.

You can of course decide what FIRE means to you individually, and subjective factors including feelings of security come into that.

Personally I wasn't sure when I FIREd how things would work out and some consulting work fell into my lap so I earned a fair bit by doing not many hours in my first year.  After that though I decided I liked not working, didn't need the hassle and the taxman taking 40% of anything I earned took the fun out of it.

[helloyou]

If you have reached your FIRE number then objectively it's not worth working for money at all.

You can of course decide what FIRE means to you individually, and subjective factors including feelings of security come into that.

Personally I wasn't sure when I FIREd how things would work out and some consulting work fell into my lap so I earned a fair bit by doing not many hours in my first year.  After that though I decided I liked not working, didn't need the hassle and the taxman taking 40% of anything I earned took the fun out of it.

Agreed on that. I went back to France do some gig and they taxed me 50% which made me stop working. I should correct that it should be based on NET earnings and not gross pay which is not the true amount you receive after the taxman came after you

[deborah]

When you have enough, you have enough! Do you want a gold plated coffin?

It doesn’t matter how much money you can make, the consequence of working is that you have less time to do the things you want to do. If working is one of the things you want to do, go right ahead, and spend the appropriate amount of time on it. Just make sure you’ve also got the appropriate amount of time for all the other things you want to do.

If you’re a nervous Nellie, and you’re not sure you’ve got enough money, fine, work for longer. It’s good to be able to sleep at night.

Inflation tends to be good for people with investments, because some investments increase with inflation. If you have an appropriate investment strategy, it shouldn’t cause issues. You’re better off ensuring your investment strategy is robust than working for longer, just in case.

[RetiredAt63]

I didn't retire early and most of my income is from pensions.  The investments give some, and are mainly there for the luxurious expensive nursing home down the road.

I retired from my long-term job when I realized the employer could pay me for working or pay me the same amount for being retired.  No way I was working for free.  I lucked into a really interesting fun contract job which also ended up paying me my "fun money" pension, or I would be signing myself "RetiredAt60".

If I were depending more on investment income for retirement, I would still retire when the investment income was well over my working income - all net figures of course.   The only caveat is that as we age where our money goes changes, and more of it goes to health and to farming out jobs we used to be able to do ourselves when we were younger and stronger.

[norajean]

Only you can decide when you are ready but you are correct that if one has such a massive amount saved that annual additional savings from income are negligible, then most likely income is no longer needed.

My annual gross income was about 5% of my net worth when I retired. Our spending that year was around 2% of net worth. We are trying to push it up to 3%.

Inflation is really not an issue.

[tipster350]

It's not complicated. I reached my FIRE number and quit. No complicated analysis is required. There is no need to work for money from this point forward. If I feel like working for money at some point, I can, but for me personally, I don't see that day ever coming.

[Villanelle]

As I'm back to work during this lockdown period and back to saving.. I was wondering at which point is it not worth working anymore for money?

The typical FIRE indicator is something in the line of 3-4% withdrawal rate. Meaning if you have a lifestyle needing $40k/year, at 4% you need about $1M net worth to reach fire. With today inflation fear, I'd say it probably need to be closer to 3% or $1.3M

Now, let say you are earning $80k/year after tax. On a $1M net worth, you're still growing your net worth by 10%/year which is quite good. Something you'd only expect to get from a good year in the stock market. So really it would worth working to grow the portfolio if you strive for some more security.

However, let say you have already a $5M net worth, a year of working would only grow your net worth by 1.6%. You really wouldn't want to work for this money at that level (exception if it's a work of love of course for which money doesn't matter)

So, what is the threshold for which it's not worth working anymore?

I'm thinking the threshold is probably in the 4% gain/year. So if I earn $80k/year after tax, it's not worth keep working for money once my net worth reaches $2M. Because the gain would become too tiny for that.

It sounds like a good framework to decide whether it worth it to keep working or not. It could be a good indicator to decide when to stop between the lifestyle need (ie. needing $40k/year to live) and the ability to compound your net worth for more security against a downturn.

This is entirely an individual question (and I can't tell if you are asking for our individual answers, or a broader general answer which, IMO, does not exist.)  For example, for me, your "inflation so 3%" point does not apply.  My FIRE plans, while perhaps not fat are certainly chubby, at least.  Also, they rely heavily on a very secure, inflation-adjusted pension.  So if inflations absolutely zooms, much my RE funding will match it.  And I have enough fat in the budget that trimming a few thousand would be no problem at all.   Let's travel domestically this year and drive the exisitng cars for 11 years instead of 10.  Done.   And finally, as a last fail-safe, I suspect between my spouse and me, we could quite easily  make a few thousand dollars a year going back to work (consulting, freelance, substitute teaching...) even in a shit economy.   And that's exactly the reason my number is My Number--because I've already accounted for these sorts of eventualities.  So no, I don't think that pending inflation (assuming that comes to fruition) is a reason to go to 3%. 

Now, I'm not quite as steadfast as those who say "my number is my number.  Full stop" because if someone offered me $1m to work for 2 months, I'd absolutely say yes  (unless the work with unethical, highly dangerous, or some other factor was at play) as there are luxuries or charities I'd love to buy or support with that money.  Now, that will never, ever happen.  And I'd do 3 months for .9m.  and 4 months for .8m.  I'm not sure exactly where the line is, though I don't think I'd work longer than a year (unless I loved the job) for nearly any amount of money.  But barring scenarios where someone throws obscene amounts of money at me, then yes, my number is my number and inflation or any other complicating factor doesn't change that or make it worthwhile to work for more money.

I think you have to ask yourself what that additional money would by you.  Since you mention going from 4% to 3%, it sounds like yo'd primarily be buying security, in which case I'd look at your plan and see if you can get more security without selling more of your time.  Can you find ways to make modest cuts in highly inflated times so you can flex your withdraw down?  Can you think of jobs you wouldn't mind doing and that have a fairly low barrier to entry for you, but are still somewhat viable in down times? This would allow you to bring in a few thousand dollars a year during down markets or periods of inflation, but you'd only have to sell your time *if* those things occur.  Perhaps even... can you buy a small inflation-adjusted annuity (or perhaps TIPS?) for some inflation protection and would the money you spend doing so cause you to work fewer additional days than just changing your number from a 4% withdraw to a 3%?  There may be other very inflation-specific investments to consider as well (like having a mortgage!). 

[Metalcat]

There's no objective point where it stops making sense to work.

There's whether or not your enjoy your work, and if you don't, whether or not you have enough money to quit.

That's really it.

Even when I wasn't FI, I walked away from lucrative jobs several times because I didn't want to do the work involved. It's no different when retiring. You're just choosing which paid work is worth doing and which isn't.

Don't make it more complicated that that.

[helloyou]

I'm not making it more complicated than it is. I'm making it simpler in fact. For people who like me always fear ending up poor or broke due to bad management.

@Villanelle while it makes sense to get some viable job while there is a downturn... to date I'm still having a career so if I take a long break and have to come back, I'm very likely going to have my salary divided by 2. So better to save while I can than thinking that everything is going to be great and ending up working twice as hard if downturn were to happen.

@Malcat working in things you like makes sense as well. I've refused gig too! But if you gig pay so little that it's not worth it, then you either see it as volunteering and do it for love, or just refuse.

[Metalcat]

I'm not making it more complicated than it is. I'm making it simpler in fact. For people who like me always fear ending up poor or broke due to bad management.

@Villanelle while it makes sense to get some viable job while there is a downturn... to date I'm still having a career so if I take a long break and have to come back, I'm very likely going to have my salary divided by 2. So better to save while I can than thinking that everything is going to be great and ending up working twice as hard if downturn were to happen.

@Malcat working in things you like makes sense as well. I've refused gig too! But if you gig pay so little that it's not worth it, then you either see it as volunteering and do it for love, or just refuse.

You are complicating it though.

You should have a target savings amount regardless of how much money you make or can make. Yes, that target amount needs a lot of factors baked into it, but that should be a firm amount at which you tell yourself "I am financially independent, I do not need to work any more unless I absolutely want to".

After that point, paid, well paid, unpaid, whatever, all becomes the same, it's all either work you want to do or it isn't.

The problem is that you're looking at it from the "need to work" perspective, where your time is precious and you need to allot it carefully to get the most return on the investment.

Once you reach your FI number though, if you keep looking at it that way, then you will get sucked into OMY for God knows how many years.

[Sandi_k]

My target is age 60, simply because DH will be age 62. And if my employer's retiree health care is revoked, it means I can get him to Medicare with three years of COBRA (California extends Federal COBRA by another 18 months).

Because we have always assumed low growth in the market, we have enough for a "leaner" fire today. And in another 4.5 years, it will be morbidly obese, based on a logarithmic increase in my pension the last 5 years of calculations. (Since both years of service and the age factor increase, once multiplied together I go from 65% of my paycheck today, to 95% of my paycheck in November 2025). It's insane.

Once I have that threshold, I will not be working again.

We have also moved money into buckets, and have adaptive SWRs. From age 60-65, we will withdraw 3.5% SWR. From age 65-70, it will be 3.75% of the portfolio. And after 70, we'll move to 4%, plus an inflation-adjusted pension, plus one SocSec at FRA, and the higher earner's SocSec delayed until age 70.

We have an asset allocation today that's 70/30%. Assuming 3.5% SWR, that gives us 8.5 years before we have to take anything from stocks in the portfolio at all. At that point, if things are still grim, I can advance the claiming on the high earner's SocSec, as we would have increased it 12% past FRA already.

So for us, it's not about savings and SWR, per se. It's about planning for good medical coverage, and about maximizing the base income from the pension and Social Security.

I fully understand that I might not make it to age 60 - layoffs happen. But I will do my darndest to make sure I give my employer good value for my paycheck, and very low drama. Keep my head down and the investment account balance up. Every month is an increase in the pension payout, and I hope to work my plan to fruition.

[Villanelle]

I'm not making it more complicated than it is. I'm making it simpler in fact. For people who like me always fear ending up poor or broke due to bad management.

@Villanelle while it makes sense to get some viable job while there is a downturn... to date I'm still having a career so if I take a long break and have to come back, I'm very likely going to have my salary divided by 2. So better to save while I can than thinking that everything is going to be great and ending up working twice as hard if downturn were to happen.

@Malcat working in things you like makes sense as well. I've refused gig too! But if you gig pay so little that it's not worth it, then you either see it as volunteering and do it for love, or just refuse.

Right, but in one case you are guaranteeing you will do that year of work, and in the other it is only a fairly small possibility.  And my point was more about what you are buying with the extra work.  Again, if it is security in the plan that you are buying with your extra labor, then i was discussing ways you might find that same mental security without having to work another year.  Knowing that if *worst come to worst* you can always find some work and that you'd only have to make a few thousand dollars to adjust for SORR or significant inflation might give you the same security has just going ahead and working until you are at 3%, as might knowing what fat you can temporarily trim to also bring down your withdraws during bad times.   You aren't going to need to make an extra $80k or $50k.  You are probably going to want an extra $3-10k, which will be pretty easy to make *IF* the time comes.  Or you can work another year now to save enough that should those fairly unlikely things happen, you don't have to work a few months or super part time later.  Substitute teach one day a week for a 9 month school year and you'll likely gross around $4000.  More than enough to account for a down market or inflation, yet still non-committal enough that your time is almost completely your own and you won't miss out any anything specific you want to do.  Contrast that with working another 3-5 years (to go from $1m in savings to $1.3).  Where other than a few weeks of vacation time, you are completely unavailable M-F from morning until ~6p.  And the reality is that they both buy you about the same amount of security.  One is an axe behind "break in case of glass" that is conveniently located in any place you ever go, and the other is you hauling around that axe all day every day in case you need it.  Both work, but one is a lot more burdensome. 

[lutorm]

After that point, paid, well paid, unpaid, whatever, all becomes the same, it's all either work you want to do or it isn't.

While I agree with most of the above, this is not exactly true either, because it's not a binary choice. For most of us, the marginal value of money does not go to zero at some magic point. The correct definition of the "FIRE number" is when your estimate of the marginal value of money drops below your estimate of the marginal value of free time. Neither of those can really be estimated very accurately, especially since your estimate has to be based on your expectation for what the rest of your life will look like.

It's pretty self-evident that if you have a poorly paid job that you hate, this will push you to put a higher value on not working, thus pushing your "FIRE number" lower. Conversely, if you have a part-time job you enjoy that pays very well, your marginal value for extra free time might drop below the marginal value of what you could do with the extra money, pushing your FIRE number higher. So in that sense, the OP is correct.

[Metalcat]

After that point, paid, well paid, unpaid, whatever, all becomes the same, it's all either work you want to do or it isn't.

While I agree with most of the above, this is not exactly true either, because it's not a binary choice. For most of us, the marginal value of money does not go to zero at some magic point. The correct definition of the "FIRE number" is when your estimate of the marginal value of money drops below your estimate of the marginal value of free time. Neither of those can really be estimated very accurately, especially since your estimate has to be based on your expectation for what the rest of your life will look like.

It's pretty self-evident that if you have a poorly paid job that you hate, this will push you to put a higher value on not working, thus pushing your "FIRE number" lower. Conversely, if you have a part-time job you enjoy that pays very well, your marginal value for extra free time might drop below the marginal value of what you could do with the extra money, pushing your FIRE number higher. So in that sense, the OP is correct.

Not for me.

Over the past year I've done a few short term jobs for anywhere from minimum wage to $100/hr because I felt like doing the work. I'm doing a job right now to help out a friend and she's insisting on paying me so I was like "pay me whatever you feel like paying me".

If you don't have a number where you can get to that point, then you can never get the full benefits of feeling truly financially independent.

If someone is LeanFIRE or CoastFIRE or any version of FI where they could really use more money, then of course they're not going to be at that point yet.

[moof]

A good friend is arguably FI, but only semi-retired (self employed trying to get one last hurrah of a project done).  At 64 it is hitting him hard that he is much more likely to run out of time than money.  So it comes down in large part as to how to minimize worry between the small risk of being forced to be frugal beyond your plans, or the risk of not getting to enjoy your retirement years because of age/health limitations?  The dividing line is very personal.

Keep in mind that the ~50% percentile of death is around 82'ish years old, and you likely should subtract 10-20 years from that as to when knees/vision/health may become the overriding limitation of your post-work ambitions.  I see only a ~20 year window remaining to go knock out big outdoor hiking/biking trips, so that is the ticking coutdown that I weigh against my quickly disappearing fears of running short of money.

In my own case I am 3 years away, and greatly looking forward to being able to fully spend time with my kid in his teenage years and to spend many more of the good weather days outside rather than watching them pass by from inside a fabric box.  My wife is making rumblings about staying on at her job beyond our FI date, and more power to her.

[shelivesthedream]

@helloyou You are overcomplicating it. The "when, financially, should I stop work?" question is the same as "how much do I need to FIRE?" Either you know what your FIRE number is or you don't. Finding it is the complicated bit - figuring out your current expenses, figuring out how much risk you're comfortable with in drawdown, estimating potential future expenses. Saying that how much money you earn per year compared to your NW is the factor is like saying that your income is the main factor in how much you spend.

Once you're figured out your FIRE number then you know you have enough money to live your "enough" lifestyle for the rest of your life. If you earn 4% of your NW per year, 0.01% of your NW per year, or 110% of your NW per year, you're either got enough money to FIRE or you haven't. If you have, money doesn't come into it and you would be working for fun. Yes, you would. Because you're not going to spend the extra money (because your expenses are not directly related to your income), you already have enough. (Deliberately earning extra money to donate is, to my mind, a question of how you want to spend your TIME post-FIRE, not how much money you're earning.)

Imagine you had MMM/Warren Buffett levels of wealth and someone offered you a £80k/yr job. Your response if you are FIRE should be the same as if you were MMM/Warren Buffett. There aren't really different levels of superfluous income here. If you are FIRE, an extra £80k/yr is the same as an extra £8/yr or an extra £800k/yr.

I'm the first to enthuse about a spectrum of FI-ness that leads to a spectrum of choices, so that it's not "life is rubbish" then suddenly "I'm FI, life is amazing!" Every £ you save is a little bit of life you've bought back, turning the volume on your FU-o-meter up a notch. But you're either on the "needs to earn more money during my lifetime" side of the line or "doesn't need to". If you're on the former side then hell yeah, it matters how much faster you can buy your freedom. If you're on the latter side, who cares how much extra meaningless numbers blip around on a screen compared to other meaningless numbers on another screen? If it still does matter to you, then you mis-inputted something in the "psychology of risk" space in your personal "how much do I need to FIRE?" formula.

[Highbeam]

"Once you're figured out your FIRE number then you know you have enough money to live your "enough" lifestyle for the rest of your life. If you earn 4% of your NW per year, 0.01% of your NW per year, or 110% of your NW per year, you're either got enough money to FIRE or you haven't. If you have, money doesn't come into it and you would be working for fun. Yes, you would. Because you're not going to spend the extra money (because your expenses are not directly related to your income), you already have enough."

Nah, I think there are different levels of "enough" that each have some value in terms of quality of life and in security.

I can live quite happily on X dollars per year but my happiness will increase with X+1. The whole point of this thread is determining how much that the extra +1 is worth to you. I think we all agree that the X is the most important step but T-bone steaks taste better than sirloin. 

[PDXTabs]

If you have reached your FIRE number then objectively it's not worth working for money at all.

I disagree, and I believe that I have an illustrative counter example. Let's say that my FatFIRE number is $2.0M which I reach, and then someone offers me $1.0B to do one day of work. I couldn't turn that down due to the increased financial security and general options that it would provide. I don't think that my choice to work one more day would be irrational.

[helloyou]

You aren't going to need to make an extra $80k or $50k.  You are probably going to want an extra $3-10k, which will be pretty easy to make *IF* the time comes.  Or you can work another year now to save enough that should those fairly unlikely things happen, you don't have to work a few months or super part time later.  Substitute teach one day a week for a 9 month school year and you'll likely gross around $4000. 

Sorry but no.

No way I'd want to work 9 months part-time to get $4k when I can get that by working less than 2 weeks a the moment. It would be pretty much crazy not to work an extra couple of weeks to avoid this possibility completely. Or even working few more months to avoid that, it's not that much in the grand scheme of things.

And as mentioned above by other members, it's not black and white whether to work a bit more to earn more or not.

If the job is cool and the pay as well, why not take it extra and get a stronger pot as well.

And the other good thing about increasing the FI number is that it allows me to enjoy more post FI (ie. Instead of being Lean FI now, just be completely FI) as well as additional sense of security.

Of course there is a stage where it doesn't make sense. For example getting the net worth from $3M to $4M probably won't make much difference.

But from $800k to $1.2M is a big jump in term of security and affordability to spend with a peace of mind.

[Metalcat]

Cool, if you want to save more, then go nuts and save more.

But I can tell you that it is pretty awesome to only do work you really want to do, regardless of the pay.

[ixtap]

This isn't a math problem, it is psychological one. As such, each person will have a different answer. I think that this kind of math may help a select few over the hump. Stress levels, plans to do other things, comfort levels, how precise those plans are, age, health, will probably be bigger factors for most individuals making the decision.

We can still add ~10%, but we are approaching our "max" number where we have agreed the excuses need to be set aside and just go. It doesn't mean that neither of us will ever work again; someone may ask us to participate in an interesting project or we may decide that we want a more expansive lifestyle or we may find that we just need to earn a little bit more to help an elderly parent afford the lifestyle they want at the end.

We have some ideas of what we would do with more money, so it wouldn't necessarily be wrong to work longer, but for the time being, our plans prioritize a bit of slow travel over those more money ideas.

[Villanelle]

You aren't going to need to make an extra $80k or $50k.  You are probably going to want an extra $3-10k, which will be pretty easy to make *IF* the time comes.  Or you can work another year now to save enough that should those fairly unlikely things happen, you don't have to work a few months or super part time later.  Substitute teach one day a week for a 9 month school year and you'll likely gross around $4000. 

Sorry but no.

No way I'd want to work 9 months part-time to get $4k when I can get that by working less than 2 weeks a the moment. It would be pretty much crazy not to work an extra couple of weeks to avoid this possibility completely. Or even working few more months to avoid that, it's not that much in the grand scheme of things.

And as mentioned above by other members, it's not black and white whether to work a bit more to earn more or not.

If the job is cool and the pay as well, why not take it extra and get a stronger pot as well.

And the other good thing about increasing the FI number is that it allows me to enjoy more post FI (ie. Instead of being Lean FI now, just be completely FI) as well as additional sense of security.

Of course there is a stage where it doesn't make sense. For example getting the net worth from $3M to $4M probably won't make much difference.

But from $800k to $1.2M is a big jump in term of security and affordability to spend with a peace of mind.

Well, you could work two months part time and make that, it would just be slightly less part time.  That was a 1 day/week scenario. 4days/week would be a couple months.

But again, you miss the point which is that in once scenario, you probably don't do that work at all, and in the other you definitely to the work, and you do much, much more work because you are buying an extra 1%, instead of just getting a small amount of cash *IF* the need arises.  So you aren't working an extra couple weeks because you need an extra 300,000 to get security your way.  You only need to cover a small amount , or perhaps none at all, if you retire with a planned 4% and then address a small shortfall if and only if it comes up.  Of course it would be silly to plan to work 9 months when you could work 9 days.  But first, that 9 months was 1 day a week.  And second and far more importantly, one scenario has you working for $300,000 and the other has you working for perhaps $3,000. So even if it is at a much, much, much lower rate, it is still less work. 

In the end you have to do what makes you most comfortable.  If working an extra 3 years so you can save an extra $300,000 is what you need to do to feel comfortable, then great.  But it seems like you aren't really willing to look at other possible ways to buy you the same comfort and not waste three years working to at least see if maybe they will save you that time in the office.   So it seems like you've arrived at your answer, so via con dios. 

[Telecaster]

The typical FIRE indicator is something in the line of 3-4% withdrawal rate. Meaning if you have a lifestyle needing $40k/year, at 4% you need about $1M net worth to reach fire. With today inflation fear, I'd say it probably need to be closer to 3% or $1.3M

FWIW, in the 1970s inflation was raging away in the double digits and the 4% rule still worked. 

[seattlecyclone]

I've been looking at this question from a bit of a different angle lately. I FIREd nearly two years ago. Financially, everything is going great. The market has cooperated quite nicely since I left my job. We've been able to spend pretty freely while still seeing our net worth increase somewhat substantially.

Unrelated to that, I have been feeling a growing desire lately to do more "useful" things to help make my community (or the world at large) a better place. I have a few regular volunteering gigs, and those are nice, but I still feel like I have the capacity and desire for a bit more. I've been looking around for various opportunities, paid and unpaid. Something that's a day or two per week is something I'm perfectly happy to volunteer for if the cause is good. As the schedule approaches a full-time job I'm more likely to seek a market-rate wage for that work. The reason is simple: I don't care about padding the stash anymore, but my real limited resource is time. The time I'm devoting to your organization is time I'm not able to spend on other things.

Do I want to make significant cuts to my leisure time? Absolutely not! If I'm going to devote dozens of hours per week to your organization, I'm going to need to be compensated well enough to outsource much of the cooking and cleaning and home repair and child care that I would have otherwise done myself during that time. My FIRE budget depends on quite a bit of DIY for various household chores; compensation for external work gives me the opportunity to cut back on chores rather than leisure when and if I decide to take on bigger responsibilities elsewhere.

[former player]

If you have reached your FIRE number then objectively it's not worth working for money at all.

I disagree, and I believe that I have an illustrative counter example. Let's say that my FatFIRE number is $2.0M which I reach, and then someone offers me $1.0B to do one day of work. I couldn't turn that down due to the increased financial security and general options that it would provide. I don't think that my choice to work one more day would be irrational.

If you have a job for me that pays $1.0B for one day's work feel free to make me the offer and I'll quite possibly prove you right.  Depending on what the job is, of course.

[vand]

I'm not making it more complicated than it is. I'm making it simpler in fact. For people who like me always fear ending up poor or broke due to bad management.

@Villanelle while it makes sense to get some viable job while there is a downturn... to date I'm still having a career so if I take a long break and have to come back, I'm very likely going to have my salary divided by 2. So better to save while I can than thinking that everything is going to be great and ending up working twice as hard if downturn were to happen.

@Malcat working in things you like makes sense as well. I've refused gig too! But if you gig pay so little that it's not worth it, then you either see it as volunteering and do it for love, or just refuse.

Can I suggest that.. while you may technically have enough money to sustain your current situation indefinitely should nothing change, you aren't FI because you aren't living the life you ultimately want to live?

You live in a guardianship so have no housing security. That must play on your fears of ending up poor or broke.

You may be ok on £20k/yr but you wouldn't be opposed to spending 40k/yr.

Family? Kids? Sunday BBQs in the back yard?

Lifestyle matters as much as numbers.

[helloyou]

Can I suggest that.. while you may technically have enough money to sustain your current situation indefinitely should nothing change, you aren't FI because you aren't living the life you ultimately want to live?

You live in a guardianship so have no housing security. That must play on your fears of ending up poor or broke.

You may be ok on £20k/yr but you wouldn't be opposed to spending 40k/yr.

Family? Kids? Sunday BBQs in the back yard?

Lifestyle matters as much as numbers.

Ahah that's a very good point. It's true I have no housing security and my ex-gf kept saying I was living like a homeless... Probably one of the reason we broke up lol.

But hey, I have my own flat close to central London, there is a large garden where I can do a BBQ anytime and invite load of people. And for family or kids these are more things I'm not currently looking for. I'd assume if I were to have a partner the cost burden might be split? Although you are right it would be hard for me to sustain a decent family life on my own without additional income.

And you got it in the nail, I can live on 20k/year, but I'd much rather live on 40k/year. And, to even go further, I'd even prefer live on 80k/year and have a nice big house in central London with load of space for parties.... lol

But of course, I should aim for what's achievable within my lifetime. I'm thinking something in between 20k and 40k a year would be the right balance between saving enough and having a good enough lifestyle.


And now that I elaborated these points, it's even a bigger reason to use this indicator to decide whether it's worth working more. When the gain I can get for a better lifestyle is not compounding enough to make a difference it's time to quit because I've achieved the maximum I can get to improve my lifestyle.

[deborah]

It’s not improving your lifestyle, but inflating it.

Each of us decides what type of lifestyle we want. I much prefer camping in remote places, with unplumbed toilets and no showers to five star hotels in the heart of a city. When I travel, I find that cheaper hotels tend to have the laundry facilities I need to clean everything after I’ve been camping for a week, so they offer me a better lifestyle choice than expensive hotels.

If you really want an expensive lifestyle, and it’s what will give you your most satisfying life, that’s your enough. But what mustashianism is about is encouraging each of us to really look at what our own wants and needs are, so that we don’t inflate our lifestyle past what actually satisfies us.

Once we have decided on our own lifestyle choice, we can individually decide what enough means to us. After you have enough, more money really doesn’t gain you anything.

[vand]

Can I suggest that.. while you may technically have enough money to sustain your current situation indefinitely should nothing change, you aren't FI because you aren't living the life you ultimately want to live?

You live in a guardianship so have no housing security. That must play on your fears of ending up poor or broke.

You may be ok on £20k/yr but you wouldn't be opposed to spending 40k/yr.

Family? Kids? Sunday BBQs in the back yard?

Lifestyle matters as much as numbers.

Ahah that's a very good point. It's true I have no housing security and my ex-gf kept saying I was living like a homeless... Probably one of the reason we broke up lol.

But hey, I have my own flat close to central London, there is a large garden where I can do a BBQ anytime and invite load of people. And for family or kids these are more things I'm not currently looking for. I'd assume if I were to have a partner the cost burden might be split? Although you are right it would be hard for me to sustain a decent family life on my own without additional income.

And you got it in the nail, I can live on 20k/year, but I'd much rather live on 40k/year. And, to even go further, I'd even prefer live on 80k/year and have a nice big house in central London with load of space for parties.... lol

But of course, I should aim for what's achievable within my lifetime. I'm thinking something in between 20k and 40k a year would be the right balance between saving enough and having a good enough lifestyle.


And now that I elaborated these points, it's even a bigger reason to use this indicator to decide whether it's worth working more. When the gain I can get for a better lifestyle is not compounding enough to make a difference it's time to quit because I've achieved the maximum I can get to improve my lifestyle.

This might be a little cheesy to some, but it had a lasting influence on me:

"More money will make you more what what you already are."

https://youtu.be/SX72p-tDzPo

[Metalcat]

Can I suggest that.. while you may technically have enough money to sustain your current situation indefinitely should nothing change, you aren't FI because you aren't living the life you ultimately want to live?

You live in a guardianship so have no housing security. That must play on your fears of ending up poor or broke.

You may be ok on £20k/yr but you wouldn't be opposed to spending 40k/yr.

Family? Kids? Sunday BBQs in the back yard?

Lifestyle matters as much as numbers.

Ahah that's a very good point. It's true I have no housing security and my ex-gf kept saying I was living like a homeless... Probably one of the reason we broke up lol.

But hey, I have my own flat close to central London, there is a large garden where I can do a BBQ anytime and invite load of people. And for family or kids these are more things I'm not currently looking for. I'd assume if I were to have a partner the cost burden might be split? Although you are right it would be hard for me to sustain a decent family life on my own without additional income.

And you got it in the nail, I can live on 20k/year, but I'd much rather live on 40k/year. And, to even go further, I'd even prefer live on 80k/year and have a nice big house in central London with load of space for parties.... lol

But of course, I should aim for what's achievable within my lifetime. I'm thinking something in between 20k and 40k a year would be the right balance between saving enough and having a good enough lifestyle.


And now that I elaborated these points, it's even a bigger reason to use this indicator to decide whether it's worth working more. When the gain I can get for a better lifestyle is not compounding enough to make a difference it's time to quit because I've achieved the maximum I can get to improve my lifestyle.

If your personal metric works for you and helps you make decisions, then that's great.

[tooqk4u22]

Obviously a personal question and answer.   Me, I left a high income when I was ready balanced between enough for me, contentment, an amount that was certainly not lean fire as my family had no interest in that, and my burn out.

We live well and ca n cover it, we worked longer to be sure.   So to the specific question I think my limit was when market swings in any give day or average year exceeded my income. 

So here I am and all is good, but there are still wants and desires beyond our limits (there always are) such as much bigger budget for travel or a beach or mountain vacation home.   My life is not lacking without these things but if a lottery ticket fell in my lap that was enough to buy a beach place and cover the expenses I would do it.......but if thebxhoice would be to go and make $80k, $200k or whatever for the next 10-30 years I would say no.   Even if it was a dream job it would restrict my freedom so no.   

Villanelle summed it up with it would have to be an obscene amount.

[Eco_eco]

I think as soon as you are within a few years of FI work becomes largely optional. We were technically FI a while back and the motivation to keep working shifted to:
- job satisfaction
- social contact
- making a contribution to society
- spare cash to invest in new areas which were fun to learn about.

Whereas my wife decided to go back to work for professional simulation and to contribute to our local community.

Now we’ve both decided that our 9-5 jobs have more costs than we would like and so we will arrange things to RE in 2024.

Most people who FIRE in their 30s or 40s don’t simple stop working, they just change to working in a situation that they find much more rewarding than their traditional career jobs. For some they like travel and blogging, others like lots of free time and occasional working, some like to volunteer, some get into projects, or to help out family.

Personally I don’t like to volunteer my time. I’ve done several years of volunteer work during my career and I’ve found that organizations tend to take you for granted if they are not paying you - ie they value your time at $0. So even when we RE I expect I’ll still be taking on some form of paid project work in the social services sector.