I just interviewed for a job that would be a 50% raise and decided I didn't want it. The routine 50-70 hour weeks would be too crazy, and it would ruin my life, my family, and cut me off from my sources of meaning.
My rationale for pursuing the job was to potentially cut 2 years off my time to FIRE. The observation that I personally don't have any more time to devote to work made me realize I'm dealing with a reflection of the "triple constraint" familiar to project managers: scope, time, and resources. Each of the constraints affects the other, and one cannot be increased without increasing the others. They form a triangle, the area of which is outcome quality.
For FIRE, the triple constraint represents three options you have to build a stash faster.
1) Make More Money
For many people, this means building the skills, education, certifications, or experience needed to convert the same 40-45 hour work week into a larger salary. However, if you're "maxed out" so to speak, and already are earning as much as you can earn with your available time, ability, and energy, you'll have to pick another constraint to work with.
2) Spend Less Money
This is the standard advice because every one of us wastes gobs of cash on dumb shit. However, you reach a point of diminishing returns if your spouse does not support the next round of cost cutting / downsizing / simplification. I see many spousal arguments described on this board, and divorce is certainly a setback on the road to FIRE. At some point in these situations, one must accept that they will have to work longer to entertain their spouse's spending habits - or let the spouse work longer, but good luck with that.
3) Earn Higher Returns
For people sitting on hoards of cash, the advice to invest it in the stock market makes sense. Once you are fully invested, however, reaching for higher and higher returns can get dangerous. Next thing you know you're buying call options on Amazon based on Jim Cramer's advice. Returns actually decline in the long run for investors who take on too much risk, so this is not a healthy area of focus for those already fully invested in an index fund.
The center of the triangle made up of these factors is "time until retirement".
Many of us are attacking all three fronts, which will generally get a person FIRE in 7-10 years, but others face hard constraints such as spendy spouses, disabilities that limit working ability, risk tolerances, a requirement to live in a HCOL area, or children/spouses/family who need our time. Perhaps for any given person, there is a "good enough" level of effort on all three factors, which represents both the best they can do given their circumstances and the point of diminishing returns which is both their goal and stopping point. Rather than being a workaholic who fights with their spouse over unused coupons and gambles their savings on pork belly futures, any given person should seek a balance and a realistic time until retirement.
That said, it's easy to make the "doing the best I can" excuse while not developing a weekend side gig, cutting off the Netflix, or investing extra cash sitting in the bank account. Maybe 2% of the people on this board, and a tiny fraction of 1% of the public can claim to be optimal on all three factors. However, many more of us are optimal on one factor, and instead of spending more time in that area need to focus elsewhere.
Thoughts on this paradigm?
