What are your leanFIRE, FIRE, and fatFIRE numbers?

[2Birds1Stone]

and high spending in FIRE. Most here seem to plan a higher spending, even without a mortgage or rent expense, than the average working person in the US earns.

Average Salary in the U.S. in 2024
"Feb 22, 2024 — According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, the average U.S. annual salary as of 2023 was $59,384."

But I realize that even here I'm a low spending outlier who FIREd on a smaller (but not lean by my standards) stash then most do.

See, I can agree with that definition (and my own FIRE feels fat, at very low spending by even MMMM community standards) but if you go into the defacto fatFIRE group on FB and say that you're fatFIRE'd on anything less than $100k/yr in spending you'll get laughed at and kicked out.


FAT FIRE to me means spending the same as Lean or Regular FIRE, but just with a lower WR%. At least so far as my portfolio grows I'm not feeling any urge to spend more on my day to day COL. I'm not going to suddenly eat every meal at a fancy restaurant or fly business class just because I can afford it. And the stuff that does matter to me isn't expensive and I already have as much of it as I want.

Not that I am a frugal role model. OTOH I guess the FIRE budget I choose way back in 2014 or so has proven robust and sustainable even with a mortgage.

[2sk22]

The Fat number means we can live almost anywhere (except, sadly, the one place in the US we'd love to be if money were no object, and where very modest houses start at about $2m, but we could go to that larger metro area if we wanted to).

@Villanelle Where is your dream place to live? Mine would be southern California, near the beach. But that's never happening for me even if I could afford it.

Coronado, CA.  It's expensive even by SoCal/San Diego standards.  Current cheapest home available right now is this condo, at $1.05m, for 635 sqft. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1106-4th-St-APT-4-Coronado-CA-92118/241608126_zpid/

Let me suggest an alternative definition of Fat FIRE - not a specific number but the ability to comfortably live wherever you want.

[Metalcat]

^^^yeah unpredictable expenses are...er..hard to predict! That may be the reason people here work years longer just to off set that unpredictable risk. Or why Fat FIRE numbers are so high.  They don't spend more on shiny things they just want greater safety. Maybe a better question instead of stash size is, barring expensive or unlikely catastrophic events, how much do you plan to spend once FIREd and and what's your planned WR?

For me they aren't "unlikely" though, so I really can't answer that.

I'm actively planning for the continued and escalating outsourcing of domestic labour, trying to figure out how to improve access to healthcare, and how to maintain a very high quality of life in a body that increasingly refuses to do a lot of frugal activities.

I've always, always said that personal risk is way more impactful than market risk.

This is why I've erred in the side of figuring out how to keep working as part of my best life. With a failing body, you just don't want budget constraints to limit quality of life.

Shit gets real if your legs stop working.

Yeah I think in your situation you have to treat all those current and likely future expenses as part of your normal (even lean) FIRE expenses since you will HAVE to cover those expenses. The rest of us kind of muddle along hoping either nothing bad happens, or that we have enough flexibility in our budget to cover that stuff. That's why lean FIRE would scare me personally (unless it was a short term plan) as there's just not enough flexibility in most people's lean FIRE finances/stash to cover much of anything else beyond your basic expenses. The ERE budget of "living in a van down by the river" on a small stash might be fine but if something happens and you can't do that any longer you need to plan for a bigger budget.

Not exactly, I don't have predictable ongoing expenses and none of my health expenses over the past 5 years have been related in any way. The spinal injury is related to my former career, the legs are due to totally unrelated dysplasia, similar to Mr. Green's condition, the eye tumour is totally unrelated to anything. I do have a genetic condition similar to Dr. Doom's, but that too is totally unpredictable and more makes other things less predictable when they pop up.

Each has been completely unexpected and presented totally unpredictable costs. Aside from outsourcing some domestic labour and paying for on and off PT, my medical-related expenses are as unpredictable as anyone else's.

I'm just really, REALLY statistically unlucky.

[achvfi]

When I first read about FIRE, I thought my FIRE # was 800K . That was pre-kids.

If you ask me now, my answer is, I don't know. Our spending last few years was way beyond expectations. But I think expenses will stabilize this year to inline with trend before we had kids adjusted to inflation. I am comfortable to go with..

LeanFIRE - $1.25 million
       FIRE - $2 Million
   FatFIRE - $4 Million

When stache gets to millions of dollars there is high chance of compounding pushing most of us become fatFire in relatively few short years.

[Ron Scott]

	LeanFIRE	FIRE	FatFIRE
MIN	$   750,000	$1,000,000	$1,700,000
MED	$1,000,000	$1,550,000	$2,375,000
MAX	$1,500,000	$5,000,000	$10,000,000

90th Percentile Net Worth
By Age*

Under 35 $400,000
…..35-44 $1 million
…..45-54 $2 million
…..55-64 $3 million

So where them frugal people at??


* https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/how-average-is-your-net-worth

[Tasse]

Can you explain your point more thoroughly, @Ron Scott? I don't understand what you're getting at.

[tooqk4u22]

Can you explain your point more thoroughly, @Ron Scott? I don't understand what you're getting at.

While not said, RS is probably showing those numbers, which are the cutoffs for the top 10% by age, that when compared to the table isn't all that different from the FIRE ranges and is likely inferring that if that most responders have to be in the top 10% of NW then they must not be frugal.

While those ranges would make someone wealthy that doesn't necessarily translate to a wealthy lifestyle.  Also many here who had high to very high incomes saved/invested much of the income instead of spending it so that we could become wealthy and live average lifestyles for the most part.

[wageslave23]

Can you explain your point more thoroughly, @Ron Scott? I don't understand what you're getting at.

Don't feed the troll.

[Ron Scott]

	LeanFIRE	FIRE	FatFIRE
MIN	$   750,000	$1,000,000	$1,700,000
MED	$1,000,000	$1,550,000	$2,375,000
MAX	$1,500,000	$5,000,000	$10,000,000

90th Percentile Net Worth
By Age*

Under 35 $400,000
…..35-44 $1 million
…..45-54 $2 million
…..55-64 $3 million

So where them frugal people at??


* https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/how-average-is-your-net-worth

Can you explain your point more thoroughly, @Ron Scott? I don't understand what you're getting at.

While not said, RS is probably showing those numbers, which are the cutoffs for the top 10% by age, that when compared to the table isn't all that different from the FIRE ranges and is likely inferring that if that most responders have to be in the top 10% of NW then they must not be frugal.

Yeah, sorta.

When I looked at the juxtaposition of Tass’ calculated averages with the NW stats, it just seemed pretty high end.

I’m wondering what the group thinks of that in light of the general zeitgeist of low-spend/frugality in the forum.

What do you think?

[spartana]

^^ I'd assume the higher an average earners NW is the frugaler they are. Person A makes $100k and lives frugally on $25k saving the rest will have a high monetary NW in a relatively short time compared to Person B,  who earns the same amount and is in the same circumstances,  might blow it all and even be in debt with a negative NW in that same time period.

Also the article didn't mention if NW included other assets such as a house or vehicles. Lots of people in places like CA have high NWs due to the increases in their home values but might be living a very frugal life off a very small income but technically have a high NW.

ETA: since Im not sure what your point was either - if you are comparing FIRE NW, and the income that NW will throw off for retirement, to the study's NW to determine levels of frugality you really can't do that as you don't know what % of income is used for each person. A lot of younger FIREees have small kids or kids in college, mortgages, caring for elderly parents, paying off student loans, medical issues, etc so that living on $40k with a million invested might be a very frugal life for them. Even a $2mm stash might be frugal for many here who plan to retire young.

[Tasse]

When I looked at the juxtaposition of Tass’ calculated averages with the NW stats, it just seemed pretty high end.

I’m wondering what the group thinks of that in light of the general zeitgeist of low-spend/frugality in the forum.

What do you think?

I think frugality is a great way to accumulate wealth? FIREes tend to be in the top tier of wealth even without massive income or spending. FIRE means saving up way more money way faster than most people so you can live on it for a long time. I don't really see the disconnect here.

[Fru-Gal]

Agree: Being frugal is how you get rich. Think of Bezos still driving his 1996 Honda Accord as a billionaire.

I used to say to my kids, as I was accumulating, “Sure, we could buy some extravagant $30,000 car (most of our cars never cost more than $2-$5k) but that’s money that is no longer is working for us.” I also used to say “never waste money on a depreciating asset” and “pay yourself first”.

People who appear wealthy often are simply debtors.

[Telecaster]

I’m wondering what the group thinks of that in light of the general zeitgeist of low-spend/frugality in the forum.

What do you think?

I think FIRE is great no matter what your number is. 

[tooqk4u22]

^^ I'd assume the higher an average earners NW is the frugaler they are. Person A makes $100k and lives frugally on $25k saving the rest will have a high monetary NW in a relatively short time compared to Person B,  who earns the same amount and is in the same circumstances,  might blow it all and even be in debt with a negative NW in that same time period.

Also the article didn't mention if NW included other assets such as a house or vehicles. Lots of people in places like CA have high NWs due to the increases in their home values but might be living a very frugal life off a very small income but technically have a high NW.

ETA: since Im not sure what your point was either - if you are comparing FIRE NW, and the income that NW will throw off for retirement, to the study's NW to determine levels of frugality you really can't do that as you don't know what % of income is used for each person. A lot of younger FIREees have small kids or kids in college, mortgages, caring for elderly parents, paying off student loans, medical issues, etc so that living on $40k with a million invested might be a very frugal life for them. Even a $2mm stash might be frugal for many here who plan to retire young.

To add on to your point I think the more one has combined and the earlier/younger they have it they are likely the most frugal as generally not in peak earning years, have higher expenses (rent, mortgage, kids), and have far less time for compounding.   

[GilesMM]

Did Pete "retire" on something like $500,000 (and then immediately build an online business generating $400K/yr via advertising to frustrated tech workers)?  Where's the frugality gone?

[tooqk4u22]

Did Pete "retire" on something like $500,000 (and then immediately build an online business generating $400K/yr via advertising to frustrated tech workers)?  Where's the frugality gone?

I think it was effectively higher than that as he had a luxury rental that covered a large portion if his expenses - I hink it through off equiv of 5% IIRC.   But not crazy $.   

[spartana]

Did Pete "retire" on something like $500,000 (and then immediately build an online business generating $400K/yr via advertising to frustrated tech workers)?  Where's the frugality gone?

I think it was effectively higher than that as he had a luxury rental that covered a large portion if his expenses - I hink it through off equiv of 5% IIRC.   But not crazy $.

I can't remember exactly but I think he retired on a $600k stash (where his $24k FIRE income number came from) and a paid off house. I don't remember him having a rental property though and I think he started the blog several years after he retired and it didn't earn big bucks right away. But I'm not sure.

As to @Giles comment about "where's the frugality" because he earned more with the blog I don't think high earnings or big stash size is an indicator of frugality. It's more about spending than income. I started out lean FIRE and am now fat FIRE years later without any job income because I didn't spend it all (frugal) and so my NW grew over the years.

[GilesMM]

Did Pete "retire" on something like $500,000 (and then immediately build an online business generating $400K/yr via advertising to frustrated tech workers)?  Where's the frugality gone?

I think it was effectively higher than that as he had a luxury rental that covered a large portion if his expenses - I hink it through off equiv of 5% IIRC.   But not crazy $.

I can't remember exactly but I think he retired on a $600k stash (where his $24k FIRE income number came from) and a paid off house. I don't remember him having a rental property though and I think he started the blog several years after he retired and it didn't earn big bucks right away. But I'm not sure.

As to @Giles comment about "where's the frugality" because he earned more with the blog I don't think high earnings or big stash size is an indicator of frugality. It's more about spending than income. I started out lean FIRE and am now fat FIRE years later without any job income because I didn't spend it all (frugal) and so my NW grew over the years.

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

[Retire-Canada]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

Any excuse to OMY. It's not about the money. It's about the fear of change.

[Villanelle]

Did Pete "retire" on something like $500,000 (and then immediately build an online business generating $400K/yr via advertising to frustrated tech workers)?  Where's the frugality gone?

I think it was effectively higher than that as he had a luxury rental that covered a large portion if his expenses - I hink it through off equiv of 5% IIRC.   But not crazy $.

I can't remember exactly but I think he retired on a $600k stash (where his $24k FIRE income number came from) and a paid off house. I don't remember him having a rental property though and I think he started the blog several years after he retired and it didn't earn big bucks right away. But I'm not sure.

As to @Giles comment about "where's the frugality" because he earned more with the blog I don't think high earnings or big stash size is an indicator of frugality. It's more about spending than income. I started out lean FIRE and am now fat FIRE years later without any job income because I didn't spend it all (frugal) and so my NW grew over the years.

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I see people saying the *won't* make do without millions, which is a bit different than saying they can't. 

I'm one of them.  DH could retire right now and we'd be okay.  We aspire to be a bit better than okay.  "Better" in this case means more ability to travel if we decide we want to, a slightly nicer home, pets, helping friends and family, and supporting meaningful causes.  It also means "not ever really thinking about money", which is pretty much our current situation.  That doesn't mean we spend frivolously.  But it means our frugality muscles are pretty finely tuned to pair with our priorities and our budget.  So if we truly want somethng and find it worth the price, we buy it.  I don't want a retirement where I see a pair of shoes I love and that would replace the current pair that's looking worse for wear, but I have to run the numbers to see if I can buy them, or decide to add meatless Tuesdays to our life for the next 6 weeks in order to afford them. And I don't want to feel I have to make deep, uncomfortable cuts in a deeply down market.  I certainly *could* live like that.  It wouldn't be awful. We'd still be far better off than many people (both working and retired), and are well aware of that good fortune (literally).  But we have the option not to.  And at the moment, employment isn't so unpleasant or burdensome.

That means we can keep working for "don't want to live like that", rather than stopping at "can't live like that". 

[dandarc]

Regarding MMM's stated retirement information - $600K in 2005 19 years ago. That's getting pretty close to $ 1 million today - 19 years of inflation compounds to a bit over 50% cumulatively. Plus a fairly nice paid off house.

So seeing FIRE in the $1-3 million range isn't that far off from what Pete did, particularly when "fatFIRE" is included.

[Metalcat]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

[achvfi]

Regarding MMM's stated retirement information - $600K in 2005 19 years ago. That's getting pretty close to $ 1 million today - 19 years of inflation compounds to a bit over 50% cumulatively. Plus a fairly nice paid off house.

So seeing FIRE in the $1-3 million range isn't that far off from what Pete did, particularly when "fatFIRE" is included.

I agree. I would characterize MMM as LeanFIREed.

For some context we are single earner household so far.. While my needs may be met by lower # than my FIRE#. I want to have as stache that can support  50% or even 100% more than my current needs if I can hold off RE for few more years. 

That allows me to take more risk, it gives me more flexibility in terms of my withdrawal rate, and also gives my family peace of mind.

[Turtle]

1 million dollars today is roughly the same as $100K the year I was born.  A million aint what it used to be.

[glacio09]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

[Tasse]

16/35 (46%) of LeanFIRE responses were $1M or below. 25/36 (69%) FIRE responses were $2M or below. And that's before getting into the difference between "can make do" and "would prefer," or before controlling for family size at all.

[wageslave23]

I listed 1.4 million as my FIRE number. But that is at age 40, with a family of 4. My annual spending is projected at $40k with 8k of that healthcare. That is by anyone's definition frugal.  But when you have kids and 50+ yrs of unknowable expenses and market fluctuations, you are going to need some buffer.

[Freedomin5]

Did Pete "retire" on something like $500,000 (and then immediately build an online business generating $400K/yr via advertising to frustrated tech workers)?  Where's the frugality gone?

To me, frugality has always been about the use of resources, not the earning of resources. (And the dictionary agrees — see definition below).

So I can have a bajillion dollars in net worth and still be frugal. Building a multi-million dollar business and being frugal are two completely different things.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:
frugal
adjective
fru·​gal ˈfrü-gəl
: characterized by or reflecting economy in the use of resources

But back on topic. We are FIRE-ing soon on about CAD 1.5M for a family of three and employing lots of ways to reduce expenses through geographic arbitrage, house hacking, and other creative ways to keep our expenses low. Basic expenses are covered by our stash, but our hobbies will also very likely generate some fun money or money for little luxuries.

We went beyond our FIRE number of 1.2M and into fatFIRE territory because we hit our number mid-contract and need to finish out our overseas work contracts.

[Radagast]

Lean FIRE: Paid off house equivalent + 1 million dollars
FIRE: Paid off house equivalent + 1 million dollars inflation adjusted from the release date of Office Space
Fat FIRE: Paid off house equivalent + 1 million dollars inflation adjusted from the year in which the writers of Office Space perceived the value of $1M in popular imagination

[bluecollarmusician]

This is funny.
I seem to remember an argument that if you WEREN'T rich, then you weren't frugal just poor.
Seemed like that argument was basically a frugal person was someone who was rich who CHOSE not to spend all their money.

This is that if you are rich (or desire to be) you aren't frugal.

We are definitely rich and frugal (by modern American standards not world standards.)

I think in all likelihood anyone who has enough assets to not require remuneration is "rich."  They may or may not be frugal.

Other thoughts on what might skew #'s is whether they include a paid off house- that makes a big difference or maybe that's addressed already? (I.e. 1.5 in assets and a paid off house vs 1 mil in assets and a 500k house.). *edited* Thanks, @Tass

Variability of cost of medical care and concerns related to that in the US are likely a large cause of "over saving" for many. 
The hyper-focus on savings rate is likely related to the tractability of numbers.
Under discussed is required shifts in mindset and real flexibilty that makes lifestyle secure. As long as money is the only form of capital you know how to use to solve problems, you will forever feel that ultimately you are just "winging it" whether you accept historical assumptions or not.

Also, @Retire-Canada nailed it- it's not about $$ in most cases but fear of change. It's a big adjustment to learn live off assets.

[Tasse]

Other thoughts on what might skew #'s is whether they include a paid off house- that makes a big difference or maybe that's addressed already?

OP asked people to exclude home value. That's why some of us specified when our FIRE # has to cover rent.

[tooqk4u22]

Lean FIRE: Paid off house equivalent + 1 million dollars
FIRE: Paid off house equivalent + 1 million dollars inflation adjusted from the release date of Office Space
Fat FIRE: Paid off house equivalent + 1 million dollars inflation adjusted from the year in which the writers of Office Space perceived the value of $1M in popular imagination

$1.89 million.   

Peter Gibbons : Nothing.

Lawrence : Nothing, huh?

Peter Gibbons : I would relax... I would sit on my ass all day... I would do nothing.

Lawrence : Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit.

That sounds about right!

[Scandium]

Regarding MMM's stated retirement information - $600K in 2005 19 years ago. That's getting pretty close to $ 1 million today - 19 years of inflation compounds to a bit over 50% cumulatively. Plus a fairly nice paid off house.

So seeing FIRE in the $1-3 million range isn't that far off from what Pete did, particularly when "fatFIRE" is included.

I believe his number was $25k * 25? So $625,000 in 2005. Which FYI is 993,106.76 in 2024 dollars. So yeah, a million, plus a paid off house. Which at least in my case would be another 1/4 mill to pay off, or double the spending number in mortgage cost. His 25k spending is $40k/year today.

So I feel pretty spendy, because I'd rather not live Pete's $25k/year (2005) lifestyle (go on; call me a wimp), but $1.5 mill in 2024 isn't that much more. Even $2M with a mortgage, and perhaps 2+ kids and some international travel desires, and a <3.75% SWR (per ERN)? I don't consider wildly more extravagant than what pete did, it's in the same spirit IMO...

E.g; Pete's spend of $40k in todays dollars. Another $25k/year for mortgage/tax/whatever. With a "more safe" 3.75%SWR = $1.733 mill stash in 2024.

[wenchsenior]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

It's mostly the need to buy a bigger, more expensive house in a more expensive location that is making all the difference in our FIRE number needing to be well over a million. About 300-500K of that is needed for housing and/or to support a new mortgage in retirement.

We could quit today if we were willing to stay in this location (and live very comfortably). But for sanity, we would prefer not to. As it is, we'll have been here >27 years at the earliest point we can bail.

[JupiterGreen]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

It's mostly the need to buy a bigger, more expensive house in a more expensive location that is making all the difference in our FIRE number needing to be well over a million. About 300-500K of that is needed for housing and/or to support a new mortgage in retirement.

We could quit today if we were willing to stay in this location (and live very comfortably). But for sanity, we would prefer not to. As it is, we'll have been here >27 years at the earliest point we can bail.

I feel this, same! If we wanted to stay in our current LCOL location we'd be fine pulling the trigger now too. It's maddening. Especially looking at houses increases in the hcol place we want to move. But I'm still grateful we'll be able to get out of here at some point (hopefully soon), many people around the globe have much bigger issues so our complaint are just #FIREpeopleproblems 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

It's interesting how your numbers can change over time based on circumstances.  Inflation is higher now, I've hit some numbers and realized they weren't as robust as I'd imagined when I was just starting out, and I'm older and wiser (i.e. put a higher value on the peace of mind financial security for myself and loved ones in my old age gives me)...  I don't have larger numbers now because I necessarily want to spend more, I just like having more cushion.

[wenchsenior]

It's interesting how your numbers can changed over time based on circumstances.  Inflation is higher now, I've hit some numbers and realized they weren't as robust as I'd imagined when I was just starting out, and I'm older and wiser (i.e. put a higher value on the peace of mind financial security for myself and loved ones in my old age gives me)...  I don't have larger numbers now because I necessarily want to spend more, I just like having more cushion.

Yeah, we haven't changed our discretionary spending since 2008 (it was lower before that b/c we weren't supporting parents). But inflation + aging and need for ongoing medical care (mostly for me) and the aforementioned big change in housing costs have definitely changed our numbers.

It's crazy how just 6 years ago, we could have afforded one of our prime desired retirement locations, and now that is much more of a stretch. All due to housing.

[slugsworth]

our 30K annual spending. We're a little over that now. No home equity as we're renters.

Rent is lower in Vancouver than I thought!

[tooqk4u22]

It's interesting how your numbers can change over time based on circumstances.  Inflation is higher now, I've hit some numbers and realized they weren't as robust as I'd imagined when I was just starting out, and I'm older and wiser (i.e. put a higher value on the peace of mind financial security for myself and loved ones in my old age gives me)...  I don't have larger numbers now because I necessarily want to spend more, I just like having more cushion.

Yeah, my original number way back when was much lower, and maybe it would of worked out, but then kids got older and more expensive, and oh maybe we should cover college, and maybe we want to travel, and maybe be prepared for full cost health care, and maybe we should have a lower WR%, and and and......but here we are with probably (who knows) more than we need.

[Ron Scott]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

It's mostly the need to buy a bigger, more expensive house in a more expensive location that is making all the difference in our FIRE number needing to be well over a million. About 300-500K of that is needed for housing and/or to support a new mortgage in retirement.

We could quit today if we were willing to stay in this location (and live very comfortably). But for sanity, we would prefer not to. As it is, we'll have been here >27 years at the earliest point we can bail.

I feel this, same! If we wanted to stay in our current LCOL location we'd be fine pulling the trigger now too. It's maddening. Especially looking at houses increases in the hcol place we want to move. But I'm still grateful we'll be able to get out of here at some point (hopefully soon), many people around the globe have much bigger issues so our complaint are just #FIREpeopleproblems

I don’t see anything wrong with your choices.

We got travelling out of our system long ago, don’t like to eat out much, and mostly spend our time on things that don’t require money. We look average, no better or worse. But we like to live in nice areas in nice housing, drive nice cars, and give $$ to family. In other words, we prioritize basics that happen to be expensive.

We’re also lifelong believers in very robust FI, in which we merely hope to break even with inflation in the long run and would likely never need to sell stocks at a loss to live.  We intend to die with a valuable estate for family. Family is more important to us than something like RE.

This requires a sizable nest egg and, for me, working longer than 25/30 X spend. That’s just comes with the plan.  I don’t hold out my life choices as particularly valuable to anyone and I could care less what others think I “should” do with my life or my money. People have to do their own thing. Judging or following others is a loser’s game.

[2Birds1Stone]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

It's mostly the need to buy a bigger, more expensive house in a more expensive location that is making all the difference in our FIRE number needing to be well over a million. About 300-500K of that is needed for housing and/or to support a new mortgage in retirement.

We could quit today if we were willing to stay in this location (and live very comfortably). But for sanity, we would prefer not to. As it is, we'll have been here >27 years at the earliest point we can bail.

I feel this, same! If we wanted to stay in our current LCOL location we'd be fine pulling the trigger now too. It's maddening. Especially looking at houses increases in the hcol place we want to move. But I'm still grateful we'll be able to get out of here at some point (hopefully soon), many people around the globe have much bigger issues so our complaint are just #FIREpeopleproblems

I don’t see anything wrong with your choices.

We got travelling out of our system long ago, don’t like to eat out much, and mostly spend our time on things that don’t require money. We look average, no better or worse. But we like to live in nice areas in nice housing, drive nice cars, and give $$ to family. In other words, we prioritize basics that happen to be expensive.

We’re also lifelong believers in very robust FI, in which we merely hope to break even with inflation in the long run and would likely never need to sell stocks at a loss to live.  We intend to die with a valuable estate for family. Family is more important to us than something like RE.

This requires a sizable nest egg and, for me, working longer than 25/30 X spend. That’s just comes with the plan.  I don’t hold out my life choices as particularly valuable to anyone and I could care less what others think I “should” do with my life or my money. People have to do their own thing. Judging or following others is a loser’s game.

Some of us will leave our estate to charity, other find that leaving your family generational wealth is doing them a disservice.

Different strokes for different folks, that's for sure.

[Ron Scott]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

It's mostly the need to buy a bigger, more expensive house in a more expensive location that is making all the difference in our FIRE number needing to be well over a million. About 300-500K of that is needed for housing and/or to support a new mortgage in retirement.

We could quit today if we were willing to stay in this location (and live very comfortably). But for sanity, we would prefer not to. As it is, we'll have been here >27 years at the earliest point we can bail.

I feel this, same! If we wanted to stay in our current LCOL location we'd be fine pulling the trigger now too. It's maddening. Especially looking at houses increases in the hcol place we want to move. But I'm still grateful we'll be able to get out of here at some point (hopefully soon), many people around the globe have much bigger issues so our complaint are just #FIREpeopleproblems

I don’t see anything wrong with your choices.

We got travelling out of our system long ago, don’t like to eat out much, and mostly spend our time on things that don’t require money. We look average, no better or worse. But we like to live in nice areas in nice housing, drive nice cars, and give $$ to family. In other words, we prioritize basics that happen to be expensive.

We’re also lifelong believers in very robust FI, in which we merely hope to break even with inflation in the long run and would likely never need to sell stocks at a loss to live.  We intend to die with a valuable estate for family. Family is more important to us than something like RE.

This requires a sizable nest egg and, for me, working longer than 25/30 X spend. That’s just comes with the plan.  I don’t hold out my life choices as particularly valuable to anyone and I could care less what others think I “should” do with my life or my money. People have to do their own thing. Judging or following others is a loser’s game.

Some of us will leave our estate to charity, other find that leaving your family generational wealth is doing them a disservice.

Different strokes for different folks

Absolutely! It all depends on the character of the beneficiaries.

Charitable giving can be ongoing, but highly selective, always looking for bang-for-buck.

The point is to live and save with a good dose of selflessness and avoid the all-about-me mentality to retire after hitting a number designed to fund your own lifestyle, aka spend-your-last-dollar-on-the-undertaker.

But yeah, different strokes.

[GilesMM]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

It's mostly the need to buy a bigger, more expensive house in a more expensive location that is making all the difference in our FIRE number needing to be well over a million. About 300-500K of that is needed for housing and/or to support a new mortgage in retirement.

We could quit today if we were willing to stay in this location (and live very comfortably). But for sanity, we would prefer not to. As it is, we'll have been here >27 years at the earliest point we can bail.

I feel this, same! If we wanted to stay in our current LCOL location we'd be fine pulling the trigger now too. It's maddening. Especially looking at houses increases in the hcol place we want to move. But I'm still grateful we'll be able to get out of here at some point (hopefully soon), many people around the globe have much bigger issues so our complaint are just #FIREpeopleproblems

I don’t see anything wrong with your choices.

We got travelling out of our system long ago, don’t like to eat out much, and mostly spend our time on things that don’t require money. We look average, no better or worse. But we like to live in nice areas in nice housing, drive nice cars, and give $$ to family. In other words, we prioritize basics that happen to be expensive.

We’re also lifelong believers in very robust FI, in which we merely hope to break even with inflation in the long run and would likely never need to sell stocks at a loss to live.  We intend to die with a valuable estate for family. Family is more important to us than something like RE.

This requires a sizable nest egg and, for me, working longer than 25/30 X spend. That’s just comes with the plan.  I don’t hold out my life choices as particularly valuable to anyone and I could care less what others think I “should” do with my life or my money. People have to do their own thing. Judging or following others is a loser’s game.

Some of us will leave our estate to charity, other find that leaving your family generational wealth is doing them a disservice.

Different strokes for different folks

Absolutely! It all depends on the character of the beneficiaries.

Charitable giving can be ongoing, but highly selective, always looking for bang-for-buck.

The point is to live and save with a good dose of selflessness and avoid the all-about-me mentality to retire after hitting a number designed to fund your own lifestyle, aka spend-your-last-dollar-on-the-undertaker.

But yeah, different strokes.

All true, but the point of this particular web site and forum is being extremely frugal and retiring very early/young.  There are some frequent posters on here who are not on board with that so I'm not sure why they hang around other than to give advice on other topics as a way of passing the time.

[Ron Scott]

Of course, but we have heaps on people on this thread saying they can't make do unless they have millions..

I'm sorry, who said that???

What I see is a lot of people saying their preferred lifestyle requires millions, that's a very different statement than "can't make do."

I can "make do" on very little, I just wouldn't prefer to not work to only "make do" on 500K.

And as dandarc already explained, Pete retired a long time ago on more than just 500K.

Yea, I use calculations for 65k a year without a paid off house. That means that I will hit the 1.6mil needed for that in 4 years. Unfortunately, at 3% inflation I will have to wait 6 years and be closer to 2 mil to match the true lifestyle match. It's a small thing and honestly not the biggest unknown in the formulas but trying to make a 1:1 comparison to numbers from 20 years ago is the way to madness.

It's mostly the need to buy a bigger, more expensive house in a more expensive location that is making all the difference in our FIRE number needing to be well over a million. About 300-500K of that is needed for housing and/or to support a new mortgage in retirement.

We could quit today if we were willing to stay in this location (and live very comfortably). But for sanity, we would prefer not to. As it is, we'll have been here >27 years at the earliest point we can bail.

I feel this, same! If we wanted to stay in our current LCOL location we'd be fine pulling the trigger now too. It's maddening. Especially looking at houses increases in the hcol place we want to move. But I'm still grateful we'll be able to get out of here at some point (hopefully soon), many people around the globe have much bigger issues so our complaint are just #FIREpeopleproblems

I don’t see anything wrong with your choices.

We got travelling out of our system long ago, don’t like to eat out much, and mostly spend our time on things that don’t require money. We look average, no better or worse. But we like to live in nice areas in nice housing, drive nice cars, and give $$ to family. In other words, we prioritize basics that happen to be expensive.

We’re also lifelong believers in very robust FI, in which we merely hope to break even with inflation in the long run and would likely never need to sell stocks at a loss to live.  We intend to die with a valuable estate for family. Family is more important to us than something like RE.

This requires a sizable nest egg and, for me, working longer than 25/30 X spend. That’s just comes with the plan.  I don’t hold out my life choices as particularly valuable to anyone and I could care less what others think I “should” do with my life or my money. People have to do their own thing. Judging or following others is a loser’s game.

Some of us will leave our estate to charity, other find that leaving your family generational wealth is doing them a disservice.

Different strokes for different folks

Absolutely! It all depends on the character of the beneficiaries.

Charitable giving can be ongoing, but highly selective, always looking for bang-for-buck.

The point is to live and save with a good dose of selflessness and avoid the all-about-me mentality to retire after hitting a number designed to fund your own lifestyle, aka spend-your-last-dollar-on-the-undertaker.

But yeah, different strokes.

All true, but the point of this particular web site and forum is being extremely frugal and retiring very early/young.  There are some frequent posters on here who are not on board with that so I'm not sure why they hang around other than to give advice on other topics as a way of passing the time.

I guess. But others, regardless of their own belief sets and interests, eschew echo chambers and consider the alternatives in their viewing space as healthy.

Regarding “very frugal” I’m still scratching my head at the average numbers here. Why do very frugal people with a MMM FIRE mentality need to hit Top 10%er wealth before retiring? The common religion also seems to worship 4% SWRs, so with $2.5m in invested assets it looks like a $100k annual spend is very frugal? OK.

[tooqk4u22]

I guess. But others, regardless of their own belief sets and interests, eschew echo chambers and consider the alternatives in their viewing space as healthy.

Regarding “very frugal” I’m still scratching my head at the average numbers here. Why do very frugal people with a MMM FIRE mentality need to hit Top 10%er wealth before retiring? The common religion also seems to worship 4% SWRs, so with $2.5m in invested assets it looks like a $100k annual spend is very frugal? OK.

$2.0mil is 90th percentile of net worth (including home equity)  and $80k is 53rd percentile for household income.  That is why most here want/need to be in the top 10% of wealth bc it only translates to middle of the pack income (WR).

Your wonder why people want to have top 10% money might be a better curiosity/judgement if people here were striving for top 10% income (WR) that is $218k and at 4% WR would require $5.45mil and that would be 97the percentile of wealth.   

But again most are striving for average and that just happens to require top 10% money (at least for a long retirement).

[Ron Scott]

I guess. But others, regardless of their own belief sets and interests, eschew echo chambers and consider the alternatives in their viewing space as healthy.

Regarding “very frugal” I’m still scratching my head at the average numbers here. Why do very frugal people with a MMM FIRE mentality need to hit Top 10%er wealth before retiring? The common religion also seems to worship 4% SWRs, so with $2.5m in invested assets it looks like a $100k annual spend is very frugal? OK.

$2.0mil is 90th percentile of net worth (including home equity)  and $80k is 53rd percentile for household income.  That is why most here want/need to be in the top 10% of wealth bc it only translates to middle of the pack income (WR).

Your wonder why people want to have top 10% money might be a better curiosity/judgement if people here were striving for top 10% income (WR) that is $218k and at 4% WR would require $5.45mil and that would be 97the percentile of wealth.   

But again most are striving for average and that just happens to require top 10% money (at least for a long retirement).

Net Worth/Income, Apples/Oranges, since most income is reported in accumulation stage, etc., is likely reduced for savings and building assets.

A better comparison with NW would use normal retirement ages, especially since the 4% WR is also gospel here for FIRE. The Top 10% of people in their 60s and 70s have an NW of about $2.5m. (And that INCLUDES a primary residence while the instructions for this thread were to EXCLUDE it.)

People here basically want to FIRE with the same NW as the Wealthiest 10% of today’s normal-aged retirees AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Just wondering where the frugal is in all this.

[mizzourah2006]

Family of 4. It's possible we'll FIRE before the youngest is in college. I don't count their 529s in our numbers. For us it would be

Lean: 1.5M
Regular: 2.5M
Fat: 3.5M

Lean would allow us to contribute some more to college, but by the time we hit regular we should be at ~$60-$80k in each kids 529.

[Metalcat]

I guess. But others, regardless of their own belief sets and interests, eschew echo chambers and consider the alternatives in their viewing space as healthy.

Regarding “very frugal” I’m still scratching my head at the average numbers here. Why do very frugal people with a MMM FIRE mentality need to hit Top 10%er wealth before retiring? The common religion also seems to worship 4% SWRs, so with $2.5m in invested assets it looks like a $100k annual spend is very frugal? OK.

$2.0mil is 90th percentile of net worth (including home equity)  and $80k is 53rd percentile for household income.  That is why most here want/need to be in the top 10% of wealth bc it only translates to middle of the pack income (WR).

Your wonder why people want to have top 10% money might be a better curiosity/judgement if people here were striving for top 10% income (WR) that is $218k and at 4% WR would require $5.45mil and that would be 97the percentile of wealth.   

But again most are striving for average and that just happens to require top 10% money (at least for a long retirement).

Net Worth/Income, Apples/Oranges, since most income is reported in accumulation stage, etc., is likely reduced for savings and building assets.

A better comparison with NW would use normal retirement ages, especially since the 4% WR is also gospel here for FIRE. The Top 10% of people in their 60s and 70s have an NW of about $2.5m. (And that INCLUDES a primary residence while the instructions for this thread were to EXCLUDE it.)

People here basically want to FIRE with the same NW as the Wealthiest 10% of today’s normal-aged retirees AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Just wondering where the frugal is in all this.

It's hard to say since you often have a very particular definition of frugal.

And as I've said a million times, a lot of folks here are exactly like you, high earning professionals with very little desire to retire super young.

But you often describe yourself as frugal, so I'm not understanding where the disconnect is???

[Ron Scott]

I guess. But others, regardless of their own belief sets and interests, eschew echo chambers and consider the alternatives in their viewing space as healthy.

Regarding “very frugal” I’m still scratching my head at the average numbers here. Why do very frugal people with a MMM FIRE mentality need to hit Top 10%er wealth before retiring? The common religion also seems to worship 4% SWRs, so with $2.5m in invested assets it looks like a $100k annual spend is very frugal? OK.

$2.0mil is 90th percentile of net worth (including home equity)  and $80k is 53rd percentile for household income.  That is why most here want/need to be in the top 10% of wealth bc it only translates to middle of the pack income (WR).

Your wonder why people want to have top 10% money might be a better curiosity/judgement if people here were striving for top 10% income (WR) that is $218k and at 4% WR would require $5.45mil and that would be 97the percentile of wealth.   

But again most are striving for average and that just happens to require top 10% money (at least for a long retirement).

Net Worth/Income, Apples/Oranges, since most income is reported in accumulation stage, etc., is likely reduced for savings and building assets.

A better comparison with NW would use normal retirement ages, especially since the 4% WR is also gospel here for FIRE. The Top 10% of people in their 60s and 70s have an NW of about $2.5m. (And that INCLUDES a primary residence while the instructions for this thread were to EXCLUDE it.)

People here basically want to FIRE with the same NW as the Wealthiest 10% of today’s normal-aged retirees AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Just wondering where the frugal is in all this.

It's hard to say since you often have a very particular definition of frugal.

And as I've said a million times, a lot of folks here are exactly like you, high earning professionals with very little desire to retire super young.

But you often describe yourself as frugal, so I'm not understanding where the disconnect is???

I guess to answer that you’d have to actually read the posts, like the one I was responding to:

…the point of this particular web site and forum is being extremely frugal and retiring very early/young.

You and I are both addressing GilesMM’s position but you choose to ignore him while I respond directly. Why is that?

[Metalcat]

I guess. But others, regardless of their own belief sets and interests, eschew echo chambers and consider the alternatives in their viewing space as healthy.

Regarding “very frugal” I’m still scratching my head at the average numbers here. Why do very frugal people with a MMM FIRE mentality need to hit Top 10%er wealth before retiring? The common religion also seems to worship 4% SWRs, so with $2.5m in invested assets it looks like a $100k annual spend is very frugal? OK.

$2.0mil is 90th percentile of net worth (including home equity)  and $80k is 53rd percentile for household income.  That is why most here want/need to be in the top 10% of wealth bc it only translates to middle of the pack income (WR).

Your wonder why people want to have top 10% money might be a better curiosity/judgement if people here were striving for top 10% income (WR) that is $218k and at 4% WR would require $5.45mil and that would be 97the percentile of wealth.   

But again most are striving for average and that just happens to require top 10% money (at least for a long retirement).

Net Worth/Income, Apples/Oranges, since most income is reported in accumulation stage, etc., is likely reduced for savings and building assets.

A better comparison with NW would use normal retirement ages, especially since the 4% WR is also gospel here for FIRE. The Top 10% of people in their 60s and 70s have an NW of about $2.5m. (And that INCLUDES a primary residence while the instructions for this thread were to EXCLUDE it.)

People here basically want to FIRE with the same NW as the Wealthiest 10% of today’s normal-aged retirees AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Just wondering where the frugal is in all this.

It's hard to say since you often have a very particular definition of frugal.

And as I've said a million times, a lot of folks here are exactly like you, high earning professionals with very little desire to retire super young.

But you often describe yourself as frugal, so I'm not understanding where the disconnect is???

I guess to answer that you’d have to actually read the posts, like the one I was responding to:

…the point of this particular web site and forum is being extremely frugal and retiring very early/young.

You and I are both addressing GilesMM’s position but you choose to ignore him while I respond directly. Why is that?

???

I was responding to you, but okay...

As for Giles, I don't know his definition of "frugal" but he's right that this forum was designed for frugal folks, but over the years has evolved much more to being filled with higher earning folks who are in little rush to retire, but who have fairly lofty FI goals.

So where is the frugality? It depends on your definition of frugality.

Most folks here are only relatively frugal, where they earn a lot, but spend relatively modestly compared to other folks in their income range. Which aligns with exactly what you have frequently defined as "frugal."

We have an extremely, vanishingly small population of very low spend folks and an even smaller population of very early retired folks, who are definitely the original target population for these forums, but as FIRE became more mainstream, bigger budgets and higher incomes became more the norm here.

That's why the subjects moved more towards analysis of what luxuries are really worth investing in, and how to maximize quality of life, etc.