Retire Early Homepage 20-year update

[dude]

Apologies if it's posted elsewhere on MMM, but it's a great read for Mustachians, posted on Jan 1 this year:

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/20year.html

[ysette9]

Great article. I'm sitting here at work daydreaming and living vicariously through this article. Now to go back through my calculations and see if there is any way I can retire at 38 instead of 43..... ;)

[Cookie78]

Great article. I'm sitting here at work daydreaming and living vicariously through this article. Now to go back through my calculations and see if there is any way I can retire at 38 instead of 43..... ;)

LOL, I'm doing exactly the same. But no chance in my case :p
but 45 is still better than 65. :D

[Davids]

While I am very jealous of this guy it does appear he never had kids so that helped him greatly. Not saying kids are bad as I have a baby boy myself but him not hsving kids helped greatly.

[ysette9]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

[dude]

The thing too about kids is they eventually leave! And then all their expenses go away.  While you've been paying for them, you (and your spouse, if applicable) have been living on a fraction of your take home pay, so you've got less of your pre-retirement income to replace.  Of course, if the kids are eating up all your income and you're not saving anything, that's another matter.

[CopperTex]

The thing too about kids is they eventually leave! And then all their expenses go away. 

This is what we pray for at least!!

[OutBy40]

Nice article, and very encouraging...though, I wish he provided a little more detail into how much he had back when he retired, what is withdrawal rate is and what his yearly expenses look like.

I haven't gone through his entire web site yet, so perhaps that information is provided elsewhere, who knows.  But still, it's an encouraging little article to read.

[Davids]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

If you are a DINK and choose to be a DINK then you should really be able to retire by 40 with relative ease.

[WYOGO]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

If you are a DINK and choose to be a DINK then you should really be able to retire by 40 with relative ease.

I am convinced this may be the same or even more the case for a SINK

[Jon_Snow]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

If you are a DINK and choose to be a DINK then you should really be able to retire by 40 with relative ease.

Truth.

[retired?]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

If you are a DINK and choose to be a DINK then you should really be able to retire by 40 with relative ease.

I am convinced this may be the same or even more the case for a SINK

Not if you are married and SINK  ; )   ...... the single income doesn't mean single.

Personally, I am SI2K

I expect DINK is better than SINK (not married) given the items one can share.  Unless both parties don't agree on savings.

[retired?]

just read the article.  Interesting, but not enough detail on his situation.

And, not to side-track the thread, but his bullet point:

    Obamacare wrecking the country? -- it's a windfall for most early retirees.

shows he is not much of a thinker.  The old adage "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is" will apply to Obamacare.  Good for one group doesn't mean good. 

It is hard for me to plan on subsidies when they simply cannot last......or, they last and are paid for by inflating the currency (or similar tactic), which can do much more damage to those living off savings.

[dude]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

If you are a DINK and choose to be a DINK then you should really be able to retire by 40 with relative ease.

I am convinced this may be the same or even more the case for a SINK

Not if you are married and SINK  ; )   ...... the single income doesn't mean single.

Personally, I am SI2K

I expect DINK is better than SINK (not married) given the items one can share. Unless both parties don't agree on savings.

Or how and where to live - both town/area and housing. As a former DINK turned SINK now turned SPINK (single passive income no kids) I can pick up and leave to cheaper digs/area if I want, get a couple of roommates, live in a hovel under the bridge, etc... All things an SO DINK partner may be unwilling to do and who may want a bit more luxury then homeless bridge-hovel dweller. But otherwise I'd say DINKs have a really big financial advantage if they are on the same page.

PS Loved the link and article. Kind of reminds me of someone I know...this woman...think her name is spartana or something like that :-). Course I'll need another decade or so to catch up to him ER time - wise.

"I spent the first 10 to 12 years of my retirement taking long road trips for several months out of the year from my [home] base."

haha!  indeed, Spartana, you are one of my idols!  (there was a time in my life when I would probably have retired to play beach volleyball, too; now I want to surf like Nords, travel like the GoCurryCrackers, and climb, climb, climb (rock and ice) everywhere!).

[2lazy2retire]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

If you are a DINK and choose to be a DINK then you should really be able to retire by 40 with relative ease.

Truth.

Not to take anything away from SINKS but seriously retiring early when you are responsible only for yourself is f@cking easy. As a single person every decision made will only effect you and as such only you have to live with the consequences, very different when you have dependents. I mean do you think I would be sitting here typing this at my desk if I did not have college to pay for.

[WYOGO]

I expect DINK is better than SINK (not married) given the items one can share.  Unless both parties don't agree on savings.

This comparison may be a wash because while there could be some slight inefficiencies for SINKs due to lack of sharing, there are many things one person can adapt to (renting a room, living in the woods or in van/pick-up) that two just may not be able or willing to handle. This can result in reduced savings rates and has accompanying compromises overall.

DINK is sometimes a temporary phase as we are hardwired to procreate and often feel something is missing overall if we do not. There are preferential differences even if DINKs are on the same page which can grow and fester. SINKs will always do what is best in their own financial interest and they do not ever have to keep the partner focused on the goal or compromise on competing objectives. Finally with a shockingly high separation rate among couples, infidelity and a whole host of other challenges, I suspect ones odds of coming out on top as a single high income earner with zero liabilities and zero competing objectives is higher overall.

With that being said if the DINKs are completely on the same page and equally driven it can be one of the most powerful forces on the planet. I would suspect though that in most cases there are numerous inefficiences and relationship complexities that dilute the potency.

[OutBy40]

That is true that he never had kids, but it also sounds like he is single. I have found that being married and having a dual-income household has made it much easier to save.

If you are a DINK and choose to be a DINK then you should really be able to retire by 40 with relative ease.

As long as one gets their head out of their own ass in time, yes.  I'm a DINK and just pulled my head out of my own ass last year (I'm 33) and still looking to retire by 40.  Yeah, it's called non-ridiculous living.