FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
I always thought the glowing stories of FIRE folks were a bit dodgy. Much of the time they aren’t even retired in the traditional sense. Sometimes they go too far sharing their acquired wisdom for cash.
I followed one blogger for several years. She shared her frugal ways, extreme in my view like buying her two-year olds shoes in a second hand thrift shop. She wrote a book, gained a lot of publicity, was featured in news articles and gave advice.
She answered questions on her blog, invited readers to send in case studies which she analyzed and then provided advice. In the past, when I attempted to post a comment questioning her advice, they never appeared.
Then based on her experience, she began providing advice for a fee, she was now a financial consultant. She changed the blog to accommodate her new service.
A year ago I noticed there were no updates on the blog, posts are now a year old. She still advertised for clients, but it was otherwise silent. Recently I clicked on the “hire me” button and it said she was not accepting new clients at this time.
What happened to the famous Mrs. Frugalwoods who had gained widespread publicity for her financial acumen writing extensively about how to save money and live a good life retired in your 30s? She just seemed to disappear.
I finally found the answer. She ran afoul of Vermonts security laws. Specifically she was charged in a consent order.
“WHEREAS, as a result of the Department’s review, the Department has concluded that Respondent violated the Securities Act by providing investment advice for compensation in Vermont without registering as an investment adviser or investment adviser representative and without qualifying for any exemption from registration.” She agreed to a fine of $7,800. The order states no-one was harmed.
It was providing her financial advice for (pretty hefty) compensation that did her in.
My cynical mindset asks, if her household (husband and two young children) FIRE worked so well, why did she need to sell her services?
Here is the dream she is promoting on her blog.
“By taking control of our money, my husband and I were able to pursue our dream of moving to a homestead in rural Vermont. He retired early, and I left my unfulfilling job to focus on helping people like you. Let me show you how to make your money create the life you want.”
A lot of us do our best to take control of our money, but don’t drop out in our 30s and then present a lifetime of knowledge and experience to others.
At least when I pontificate it is based on 80 plus years of dealing with the vicissitudes of life – mine and others.
Let’s clarify. I asked Gemini what measures do FIRE use to be frugal. Following is the answer. Are such strategies practical for many people? Does this lifestyle continue after “retirement?”
🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
“Here are some of the extreme cost-cutting measures and lifestyle choices commonly practiced by FIRE enthusiasts:
Housing:
Transportation:
Food:
Lifestyle & Entertainment:
Debt & Financial Habits:
I’m no fan of AI, but that’s a pretty good list. I certainly didn’t do all of it, but I did some. I bought a smaller house than I could theoretically afford, and paid the mortgage off in twelve years. I’ve driven a hybrid since 2007, and I never drove one of those hulking SUVs. Living alone I didn’t bulk buy, but I did a fair amount of cooking. When I moved to the CCRC my senior mover described my decor as minimalist – I’ve always hated shopping and never been acquisitive. I also spent fifteen years traveling much of the time, cheaply.
I never felt I was stinting myself, and retiring at 53 so I could travel would have made it worthwhile if I had.
Something else to think about: you chose to have a stay-at-home wife and four kids, meaning you were supporting six people on one salary. Some people are DINKs – dual income, no kids. It should be obvious that they are in a better place to retire early than you were, not to mention that you have said you didn’t want to.
Most of the list is common sense. But one has to have the desire or the motivation. I’ve practiced nearly everything on the list and continue to do so. I never bought second hand clothes as an adult.
Of course, everything is optional within the bounds of one’s budget. I suspect most of us have practiced some of the items on the list, but not all simultaneously.
The FIRE approach suggests that we practice them all.
As my budget loosened and I retired we visited the family diners more frequently. They are relatively inexpensive and a good place to socialize with friends. That’s a choice, too. We could have entertained at home, but we were living in a RV which makes it awkward. If the weather was good, we could collect a small group under the awning and grill. Not everyone is a fan of outdoor living.
We bake and cook a lot. But with the price of eggs and butter that has become expensive. My cinnamon bun recipe requires about two pounds of butter with eggs, candied fruit, raisins, fresh cinnamon, sugar, milk, flour and yeast. It is time consuming and after creating the sponge I let it rise two more times. Add it up and it is an expensive thing. In fact, the local French bakery told me that 2025 was their last year for seasonal stollen. They would have to charge $30 for a loaf in order to make a profit and that is beyond the reach of many. This year, for the first time, even at the price of cost they did not sell all they made.
Simple steps can have consequences. I’m not a big fan of the personal finance guru shows, but while driving I do recall listening to a “radio” show a few years ago. It was a follow up about how those who had aired their financial problems were doing a year or two later. One woman, who had complained about never having the funds to take a vacation had been coached to skip her daily visit to Starbucks and put that money in a jar. She reported that by doing so she had saved enough in a year to finally take that vacation.
The average family spends many thousands of dollars each year servicing their debt. Simply eliminating credit card debt and allocating those funds to retirement accounts will make a significant difference.
However, we may prefer to take out a loan to buy our chips and treats, or pay for that restaurant meal. It is a choice.
That sounds like the proper way to live, Americans should take some detailed notes. These are literally like American values, DIY and self-sufficiency, hard work, doing what it takes to get the dream. That we’ve been brainwashed into thinking that dream requires car leases and suburban cookie-cutter homes with big lawns that literally no one uses, or frequent vacations to places like Disney, is the tragic result of marketing campaigns.
This.
To a degree I agree. But hardly practical in many respects. As long as people live within their means including saving first, I don’t care how they spend the rest of income.
Just imagine what would happen to our economy if everyone lived like that or even close. Unemployment would be rampant and recession would be putting it mildly. Our economy is driven by consumers.
The economy would be fine, it would just change and adapt. Some companies would die, others would rise. It’s the way of the world.
A rapidly shrinking money supply could be problematic. But increasing median net worth and decreasing wealth disparity would likely lead to overall increased consumption. It’s a mistake to think of FIRE as squashing consumption, it just changes consumption patterns.
How is that? Can’t see your points increasing consumption if extreme frugality is part of the equation nor that wealth disparity in the form of net worth helps.
Not sure about that. A drastic reduction in American consumer spending would lead to a deep and widespread economic crisis, recession, mass unemployment, business failures, and financial instability.
I disagree with your assessment. Among other things I think of all the waste that would be eliminated.
Using setback thermostats would reduce energy consumption and costs. Our electric utility companies gave us discounts and in Illinois if we set back for several hours during critical, peak summer days we saved a significant amount, some via energy use reduction and more via a credit to our bill. (Modern intelligent power meters are remotely monitored). Our current utility provided us with a free “intelligent” setback thermometer and offers a “time of use pricing plan”.
I doubt if FIRE proponents have been filling the landfills with plastic and cast offs. Reducing discretionary spending and the interest on credit cards might free up funds to buy a home, or improve retirement accounts.
It could be devastating for China, and the Dollar Store/Dollar General might experience increased sales, but beginning at $1.50.
I don’t see anything that isn’t practical. And I agree with Liam that this should be a model for how people live.
We humans are an inventive bunch. If people stop blindly buying things that some advertisers have convinced them they can’t live without, our economy and industries would adapt.
If I didn’t have a car I couldn’t even buy food let alone do anything else. I don’t have a place for a garden, I’m not renting out a room and buying in bulk has its downside.
Where in your list does it say that the only approach is to get rid of your car? Under transportation the 3 points are no car/one car, minimize driving, buy used reliable cars. I have a car, too – it’s a reliable hybrid and I use it as little as possible.
The list you posted is fantastic! I hope you (and others) aren’t discouraged because you can’t put all the ideas into practice. I also hope you don’t dismiss the whole list because some suggestions aren’t appealing or possible for you. 😉
I’d feel pretty trapped if my whole ability to survive depended on my car 😬 especially with the costs of cars being so insanely high these days. I mean, they always were high, but now it’s even worse.
Especially if I were getting to the age when I would have to stop driving…
I think about that, especially since Connie can’t drive because of her eye injury. Uber, friends and family are options I think about, but hope to avoid.
Living in a rural town, as we do, I’m hoping by the time we can no longer drive self driving cars will be safe and reliable.
Just an aside, According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2024, 49.6 percent of married-couple families had both spouses employed.
i thought it was much higher. Now I don’t feel so bad being different. Based on many comments, I perceived HD readers to have a high percentage of dual incomes. I wonder.
While we are on the topic of fiRE consider this.
The ratio of workers to retirees has been steadily declining in the United States over the last several decades, and this trend has continued over the last ten years. This is largely due to demographic shifts, specifically the aging of the population as the baby boomer generation enters retirement, coupled with lower fertility rates.
Here’s a summary of the working to retiree ratio and related trends over the last ten years:
The ratio of covered workers to Social Security beneficiaries has fallen significantly. In 2000, it was 3.4 workers per beneficiary. By 2024, it is down to approximately 2.7 or 2.8, and it is projected to fall further to around 2.2 by 2050.
This ratio is particularly important for the Social Security system, which is largely a “pay-as-you-go” program. A declining ratio means fewer workers are contributing payroll taxes to support a growing number of beneficiaries, putting pressure on the program’s financial sustainability.
The percentage of Americans aged 65 and older who are still working has generally increased over the past few decades. For example, in March 2024, about 22.0% of adults 65 and older were employed, down slightly from 22.5% in March 2022, but significantly higher than the 11% in 1987.
Workers aged 75 and older are the fastest-growing age group in the workforce.
In essence, while more older adults are choosing or needing to work past traditional retirement age, the sheer demographic shift of a larger elderly population and a relatively smaller younger population is driving down the overall working to retiree ratio.
I’ve seen statistics that estimate the size of the shadow economy in the U.S, which is about 5% of GDP. We used to call it the black market.
It is presumed the shadow aspect of the U.S. economy has grown in recent years with the rise of the side hustle. “Undocumented workers” also prefer cash and I’ve known individuals who habitually under-report income. These workers are invisible in most statistics. While the U.S. has a problem, in China it is larger, at about 20% of GDP.
In Yeonmi Park’s book about her life and escape from North Korea she wrote about that country’s shadow economy.
To someone pursuing FIRE social security is largely superfluous, since if they really drop out of the wage world they aren’t going to accumulate many credits for SS, and they will have their income needs covered without it. If they get it it’s just free bonus money. That does mean they also won’t contribute what they otherwise could have to SS, but that’s not exactly the fault of the FIRE individual, but rather an issue of bad government policy.
Also, I’m gonna be blunt it’s just not my generation’s problem that for the last 30 years the issues with social security have been lazily kicked down the road. Actions do have consequences, and the cuts are absolutely coming to claimants if we continue with the status quo. Nobody my age is even expecting social security to be secure by the time we get to claim it anyway.
You are right about the irresponsible behavior not fixing SS and Medicare, there is no excuse.
But it will be your generations problem in several ways if the fund is not made solvent.
FYI those cuts will not actually happen. Even though the risk is higher under our current ideology, I still don’t see any Congress taking that risk.
Based on what I am reading about AI, the problem is more likely to be not enough jobs rather than not enough workers. See here and here.
I think it will just mean an expansion of the service economy, maybe? Fewer stationary typist kind of jobs, like writing, coding, copywriting, analytics, reports, yada yada, and more high-contact work that involves people skills. We survived the internet transition, I’m sure we’ll survive AI… Right?
What I came here for was FIRE, what I got was Dick getting flamed by dislikes. That’s not the fire he meant y’all 😂 (sorry to poke fun at you Dick, I just can’t resist.)
After my divorce (in my mid-40’s), I realized I needed to get serious about saving and investing. I read many different books and investigated several financial websites, including a couple of the more popular FIRE blogs.
What those FIRE blogs did was inspire me to see just how much I could save. Even though I’ve always been frugal, I was inspired to find even more ways to cut back on my expenses. At the same time I was inspired to find ways to increase my income. I began doing freelance writing which increased my income by a couple of thousand dollars a year.
For about four years, I was able to invest a significant portion of my income into my retirement accounts. At one point I was living off 50% of my income and investing the other half.
Those four years of extreme saving have served me well. Whether or not the FIRE bloggers are ‘telling the whole truth’ doesn’t matter to me. The information I gained from some of them inspired me to achieve a higher rate of saving, even if for just a brief period. And that’s a win in my book.
I enjoy reading diverse viewpoints, including some expressed in the FIRE community. No single group has a monopoly on good ideas. I try to adapt those which I find useful. This becomes interesting when a couple of my favorite authors disagree on some point. My goal is not to craft the best plan, but rather one which is best suited for me, with all my quirks, because then I’ll more likely stick with it.
You nicely summed up how you found some advice which was helpful and it paid off for you. That is clearly a win.
So, I read the Mr. Money Moustache article linked below. Seems to me this paragraph says it all:
“If [you] want to retire within 10 years, the formula is right there in front of you – simply live on 35% of your take-home pay**, which is approximately what I did without even realizing it during my own younger years. The only reason Mustachians will remain a rare breed, is because this article will never appear in USA Today. (Or if it does, people will be too busy complaining about how it can’t be done, rather than figuring out how to do it)”
Seems to me Dick is so busy complaining that he can’t see that some people can in fact retire early – in their 50s if not their 30s. He can’t accept that some people may make more money than they need for what they consider a comfortable lifestyle. I could have bought a bigger house, which would have had higher carrying costs, but why does a single person need more than three bedrooms (one of which was my study)? I could have bought a flashier car, but I loved my Mazda MX6 turbos. I could have spent more money on clothes, but I hate clothes shopping. I could have taken expensive cruises, but I much prefer traveling overland – by public transport. There is more to life than work for pay.
Everything you write past “their 30s” is not accurate at all. In fact, I have alluded to all those things myself many times on HD several applied to us during most of our marriage.
However, I do not think living on 35% of take home pay is in anyway practical for the vast majority of people and what does take home mean? After paying for health insurance as is the case for some people via employment or just after payroll taxes?
Some people make more than they need, many, many more don’t.
Do you seriously believe a family earning $60,000 can live on 35% of take home pay and within ten years invest and accumulate sufficient assets to retire in their 30s + and live on the assets the rest of their lives (or even life for a single person)?
I don’t believe it for a minute.
Apparently average families are living paycheck to paycheck even on 6 figure incomes, so I do agree that it’s not realistic that everyone does this. Doesn’t mean it’s unrealistic for people who can swing it.
Other points, I think our economy would be better off if we had more citizens in positions of financial independence, but that’s just a thought experiment, so who knows? I also will point out that taxes (besides property) are pretty much irrelevant for the fire adherent once you actually leave paid work. No FICA, no income taxes except whatever low rate your state charges on income, and then you can get lots of deductions and credits.
I agree it would be better off unless it meant lower spending and lower workforce participation. Then you may have complications for the economy.
Great. So I’m supposed to keep working because it’s good for the economy?? That just tells me there’s something wrong with the economy, which I already knew.
Like it or not, the economy functions with people working, providing goods and services and spending.
If the balance tips too far there is a problem, perhaps too few workers, recession because of low spending.
In an organized society everyone needs to contribute in some way. The growing imbalance between working people and those on SS is already a problem.
Why are you so obsessed with denying FIRE has any validity? A fear that some people might do better than your life which you proclaim has been pretty perfect?
From everything you have written FIRE would never work for you. You are the definition of safety first, buffer upon cushion upon headroom. And you hate working with numbers and planning.
But it might work for one or more of your kids or grandkids. Particularly if they get a healthy inheritance from you to turbocharge the plans. Do you intend to introduce it to them with an open mind so they can see for themselves? Or do you want to poison that well for ever for them?
Striving for financial independence is a worthy goal. Being honest about what it takes to achieve that would be nice and it isn’t 10 years as Mr MM claims.
Trying to achieve that goal to flaunt retiring in your 30s or 40s and live off investment income – and in some cases lower income government subsidies too is not.
Mr MM and others are marketing a false concept. It’s a PR campaign. Books, websites, blogs, publicity – all making money. All creating a myth.
Imagine our economy if masses of people achieved that.
Live prudently, strive for the best version of FI you can which fits your lifestyle.
But once again you’re obsessed with extreme examples. Full FIRE in 30s may not be possible unless you’ve banked tech bro or Wall St money but 50s – why not? Then 40s becomes a possibility for those who are really prepared to work at the frugality and maybe not have large families and second homes or even decent professional careers. You really need to separate the FI from the RE. Once you have FI, RE becomes a choice not a mandated action.
Being honest is just maths – if you spend $50k a year then a pot of $1.5m invested appropriately should have a high probability of seeing you through 30+ years. You can sling all your neuroses on top of that about healthcare costs and SS fund failing etc etc to weigh it up more if you want.
Loads of people will never full FIRE in their 30s or even 40s because of stuff like house prices, biological and societal urges to breed and an ever increasing number of commercial opportunities to consume.
Unless the great AI revolution forceably REs them – then what doesn’t striving toward FI look like a sensible hedge?
I don’t think FIRE bloggers are marketing a myth. They are laying out a lot of their experience for free but saying do your own sums, make your own plan. I happen to think that a lot of them are still part working when they regard themselves as RE in owning and managing rental properties, blogging, running seminars even part time gigs. But then again you regard yourself as fully retired yet you run your own blog and post forum items daily.
I make zero $$ from my blog. There are ads, but I don’t get a penny. It’s a hobby as is HD.
I didn’t say “many” people. I said “some”. Unfortunately, many people barely get by, but that doesn’t mean that the more fortunate can’t choose to go their own way. And I suggest you re-read Cecilia’s post – she said her average salary was probably around $55,000.
The 35% and ten years was one example. If you saved less it took longer.
The FIRE stuff is nonsense and just a way to click-bait people on various platforms to make money. There are tons and tons of people out there retiring in their late 40s/early 50s with well-diversified savings/investments just living their lives. They aren’t trying to show off or make passive income from their accomplishments. The people at HD are just doing it for fun and out of a sense of community interest.
It is surprising how little one can live on if one wants to save. There was a time when I was broke after a lifestyle disruption. I had many bills, after a lifestyle disruption, etc. I’d always been scrupulous with my finances and spending, but my situation took that to another level.
I was living in a heated apartment and the rent was $642 a month. My food budget was $25 a month. No Starbucks, fast food, snack foods, soda, beer, etc. allowed. The car was used sparingly because of my budget for gas. Basically to and from work with any groceries purchased on the way home. Any “spare” cash was allocated to medical bills, etc. For entertainment there were magazines and books at the Library. I once turned down a group outing to the nearby movie theater because I didn’t have the cash. When things got better I went on a date to Dunkin Donuts. I bought a donut & coffee special, she purchased a tea. We split the donut.
I lived a frugal lifestyle for two years and paid off the debts. As things improved I splurged on a VHS deck and occasional movie rentals. I increased the food budget and instead of spending I saved. I shopped at a Sam’s Club to save on groceries, clothing, household, Etc.
Throughout I tracked every penny and had a budget. Eventually I saved enough to buy a condominium. Even with lifestyle creep after taxes and bills, about 40% was saved.
Here is what earlyretirement.com blog says FIRE is “FIRE requires you to step up your game and save a minimum of 30% or more of your net income. 50% would be even better. You can likely cut the accumulation phase in half and retire well before the typical retiree. You use your nest egg to bridge the time until Social Security starts and maybe even have a side gig, like a blog, or adjunct teaching job, etc., to supplement your budget for a few years.”
Many of these folks are high income to begin and many have two of those incomes. When they say save 50% they are often talking about living on one of two household incomes.
“When they say save 50% they are often talking about living on one of two household incomes.”
And what, exactly is wrong with that?
Nothing except it is misleading don’t you think, especially when in many cases, the incomes are quite a bit above average.
It’s not misleading – most multi-occupancy households have 2 earners, the housewife is a legacy of the mid 20th century. And as for being high earners so what – I don’t think many/any people are saying FIRE at age 30 to a plush lifestyle is possible on a minimum wage job.
The whole point is do your own sums based on your own ambitions and your own earnings. Don’t just do what company men (and they were largely men) of the last century did – put in the years and hope not to die of a heart attack at your desk.
It’s just a concept and a “self empowerment movement”. There are no published rules. But clearly if you can earn high and spend low (and even better multiply it on a couples basis) you can reach a target quicker.
It wasn’t your path but just because that’s the case why are you trying to run down a whole financial education movement? I thought you were all for empowering workers to better retirements (which doesn’t necessarily mean more padded in gold).
The alternative with high incomes is to enjoy lifestyle creep – maybe lots of kids, premium autos, big toys, golf and country club memberships, vacation homes, expensive long haul travel. That’s not “wrong” either, just some people choose not to take that path.
(Best steer clear of FatFIRE because that’ll really irritate you.)
It certainly is not financial education and I never ran down that education. I spent most of my working life pushing and participating in financial education.
FIRE is deceiving and unworkable and undesirable for all but a tiny fraction of high income individuals. What household anywhere near the median income level can save 50% of their income no matter how they live unless maybe in a commune. It does not teach any practical lesson.
Nothing at all wrong with reasonable frugality, living below one’s means, and saving.
This is just wrong. Learning about the principles of FIRE is absolutely financial education; the reading I did on various blogs (MMM, ERE, etc) taught me about things like asset allocation, withdrawal rates, tax considerations…and led me to places like here and Bogleheads.
“FIRE is deceiving and unworkable and undesirable for all but a tiny fraction of high income individuals.”
No, it is not. I’m 56 and I’ve never made close to $100,000 – I think my average annual salary over my working years is closer to $55,000. But in applying what I learned from those blogs you disparage, I’ve achieved financial independence. My investments are >30x my expenses, and that’s not counting the small pension and SS I’ll eventually draw. And I got there while raising a child, getting them through college debt-free, traveling the world, and having wonderful adventures. I haven’t retired yet, but I LOVE knowing that I can pull the plug at any time, and if funding cuts to higher education mean my job disappears, I’ll be just fine.
One last thing, you seem to delight in picking the same people (RoG and FWs) to hold up as your examples of why the entire FIRE movement is hogwash, while ignoring anything or anyone that challenges your assumptions. Confirmation bias, anyone?
What percentage of your gross income did you save to get where you are while paying all those expenses?
You did imply you paid for college and travel, right?
I give you credit for being a brilliant investor. What did you learn from those blogs, live as frugally and modestly as possible and save as much as possible?
Presumably you have worked 25-30 years to build your nest egg which is a good job, but I bet you weren’t in a position to claim retirement at 33 or 37.
The percent of my salary that I’ve saved has varied depending on my life circumstances, but it’s been anywhere from 5-50%.
Yes, I paid college expenses and travel. I suspect how you and I travel is wildly different. I spent 5 weeks in Greece last year and spent less than $1200 on hotels – none of them were dives, or hostels – just small, family-run places.
I’m not a brilliant investor. Not at all. I was taught to ‘pay myself first’, so even when I was a graduate student in the 90s making $900/month, I put $50/month in my IRA. Turns out compounding interest is a real thing!
What did I learn from those blogs? I learned that at a certain multiple of expenses, I can draw down without (undue) worry about running out of money; reading MMM’s post, The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, led me to the Trinity Study and a further deep dive into the other studies that have been done on SWRs (e.g., Karstens at ERN). From Frugalwoods, I learned that I was paying too much for my cell phone bill! 🙂
For me, it’s not about living as modestly as possible; it’s about prioritizing what I spend money on. I don’t value ‘things’ – houses, cars, electronic gadgets, designer clothes, etc. I do value education, travel, and experiences (hiking, backpacking, time with family and friends).
No, I wasn’t in a position to retire when I was in my mid-30s. At that point, I was just a few years out from having finished my PhD, in a field that doesn’t pay much (see above earning history). But that doesn’t negate the value of what I learned from those in the FIRE community.
Do you spend time on the Bogleheads forum? You might find it interesting. There are lots of people sharing their stories and insights and you might find it less triggering than FIRE blogs. 🙂
Well it sure sounds like you did a great job. Best of luck when you do retire.
Has it occurred to you that you are so fixated on the idea that there is only one way to handle retirement that you don’t really see the counter-examples? You can’t imagine taking the FIRE route, even in a modified form, so the people who do must be charlatans?
I am a realist, practical, cynical if you will. The FIRE now claims different versions some now acknowledging some on going work.
My criticism has always been that average households earning near the median income cannot do FIRE cannot save 30-50% of income and that many claiming FIRE in their 30s or so are not retired and the viability of what they claim has not been tested over time.
I get negative arrows for asking Beverly to clarify what she presents. I don’t think asking what I did is unreasonable, but i do think accepting such a story without further clarification is.
As i have mentioned before, i may be affected by decades listening to employee complaints and problems when so many provided only partial facts, incomplete information and misinformation.
You get negative arrows because rather than taking a poster at their word you immediately ask aggressive and highly personal questions about their circumstances as if you are trying to audit them for veracity and trying to discredit them.
Because I’ve done the thinking for myself and read plenty of case studies from individuals in relatively modest circumstances being able to reach what for them is financial independence there is nothing in her story which is not entirely credible.
Tell me what was aggressive about the above question or disrespectful? Doesn’t the story raise any questions for you?
Why would this story raise any more questions than any other story posted on HD? After all, anyone could be making up fictional stories about their lifestyle, how much money they have and any other details about their life.
I think you get a lot of negative arrows because it seems like you are incapable of accepting that anyone can be happy if they don’t live a life like you (claim) you do. And it seems like that’s especially true if the person posting has a feminine name.
That is both inaccurate and unfair.
Absolutely not as I’ve said. And I’m answering solely for your own education. Think of it as “tough love” feedback.
As for aggressive – no pleasantries, no congratulations on getting to an FI position, just launch straight in with
What percentage of your gross income did you save to get where you are while paying all those expenses?
You did imply you paid for college and travel, right?
The “right?” is also an unnecessary flourish which can be interpreted as challenging the account just given.
then you end with
but I bet you weren’t in a position to claim retirement at 33 or 37.
She never claimed she was. That’s your own strawman about what FIRE represents and again implies that you were dismissing her account as invalid.
And you don’t even bother to get her first name right.
I don’t need this arguing back again. I sense you don’t recognise how you present and thus are incapable of change.
You’re still focused on the tiny specific bit of FIRE for the most extreme cases rather than the bigger picture.
It’s a bit like me saying that your entire retirement is a bogus sham because some employers go bust and default on their pension schemes.
High horse much? You’re certainly betraying your true colours and biases rather than evidence.
Your opening post showed a lot of it in the apparent glee you were taking in a FIREee who you think has “failed”. So what if people fail at it – what’s the worst case? They have saved, lived below their means and have to take a job that you’d be still advising people to have anyway.
I don’t know how you can say categorically it is unworkable because we know you proudly have never actually budgeted or financially planned towards an outcome in your life.
I say it is unworkable over a lifetime beginning with “retirement” in a persons 30s to the end for 99% of the population.
That’s both financially and practically.
This all seems to come down to Dick’s belief that you need 100% of your salary to live comfortably. This is clearly wrong. I am a case in point. I retired from full time work in 2000, at 53, with a pension just under 40% of my final salary. But that wasn’t as crazy as it may sound. I started using Quicken in 1998, and I looked at the year end report for 1999, my last year of full time work. Consider:
My largest expense was taxes, at roughly 33%, but after I stopped part time work, they were less than a third of that – a saving of 23%.
My mortgage was another 11%, but I had refinanced from 30 to 15 years early on, and made extra principal payments. I paid off the remaining balance shortly after retiring. My house was smaller than the formulae said I could afford, but I neither needed nor wanted anything bigger.
Then, I stopped saving. Withholding from my paycheck was running 13%, with another 12% I wasn’t spending.
I make that 59% of my salary I could live without, while maintaining the same standard of living. If you want to know how it worked out over time, see my previous article.
I did a little more checking. I retired with a pension a little less than 40% of my final salary. My pension plus Social Security today are a little more than 40% of what that salary is worth in today’s dollars. At 78 I am finally starting to draw a little from my portfolio, which has been quietly growing, untouched, for the last 25 years. I am still waiting for Dick to explain why I should have continued to work instead of having a wonderful time traveling. I worked to live, not the other way round.
Kathy,
We are in about the same percentage as you. I retired in the fall of ‘18, and my wife the spring of ‘19. The 10 year return on our portfolio has been about 10% and that has been roughly what we have been spending outside of new car purchases. Thus we have been spending about 70% of our pre-retirement income, or maybe a little less. In the time we have been retired our portfolio has only dropped 100K which is roughly what we spent on the two vehicles. This level of spending has not stopped us from taking two expensive trips per year (generally 4 weeks, which we didn’t do prior to retirement) with no change in our life’s
Retiring with 100% replacement does not mean you spend that much. There are taxes that reduce that. We don’t spend 100% of our net income, I just think it is highly desirable to have a good gap between all spending needs and net income.
if someone were to work out their spending needs and desires in retirement and then plan to retire with an income near that number, I think they are taking a risk.
If you strive for 100% and there are no anticipated significant increases in spending during retirement what more do you need to plan?
In our case there was no drop in spending when I retired. Mortgages were paid years before. I had no commuting costs, no loans of any kind.
In fact, spending on things like health insurance increased significantly and as far as saving goes, that continued in the form of 529 plans, building up and maintaining cash reserves (not at the same level) and reinvesting all investment income. During the five years before retirement most of our saving was just not using non-cash compensation.
It’s just a comfortable idea not a requirement or necessity, but it minimizes financial stress even if I had to work longer than most people would like to achieve it.
Whatever meets your needs, just do it. Don’t mind me.
I just demonstrated that I was spending way less than 100% of my salary. Why, then, should I need to replace 100% of it in retirement? And, which year’s salary? The year I turn 50? The year I turn 60?
I never said you need 100% I said it was desirable, should be a goal. Clearly most people do not achieve that goal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not desirable.
The greatest benefit is that it provides a cushion for spending and inflation. Achieving that goal makes expense/spending planning in retirement a lot easier or unnecessary.
I don’t know anyone working or retired who would not like an income that is more than they need.
Here we are with people defending FIRE, but not people who strive for the longer end of the retirement financial spectrum.
Either a person lives as frugally as necessary to retire early and live that way for fifty or sixty years or they work for the pot of gold at the end.
Maybe the problem is you don’t know a wide enough range of people. Per a story Morgan Housel has relayed:
All FIRE is really about is helping people get their heads around what and when might be “enough” and then, how to get there. As before if the normative mindset always says “more is better” it’s not a surprise there is dissonance.
A question for you when people lie on their death beds do you think they think “Oh if only I’d accrued more….” or does whatever point on the retirement financial spectrum they are become irrelevant?
Jonathan is very generously exploring these ideas for us in his pieces of late. I think we’d all do well to pay attention.
How did we get to more is better or needing more than enough? I never implied that. I never favored lavish spending.
All I criticized is people who claim to save half their income and sometime in their 30s have accumulated sufficient funds to “retire” and live on that income for the rest of their life. That is a FARCE.
Everyone I can find to read about still makes money some way and a few use various taxpayer subsidies.
Root of Good claims to have $3,000,000 net worth, travels around the world with his family of five several times a year, mostly for free from various reward programs, has blog and consulting and investment income and keeps his income low so the family gets free ACA health insurance. He “retired” at 37.
You literally wrote
So, you don’t want or don’t have an income more than you need, MEANING more than sufficient to pay all your necessary bills or even a modest amount for fun?
I think if you’re going to start threads pontificating about what others have written elsewhere then you’d be well served to be very precise in what you write rather than be scattergun about what you “mean” and then resort to backfilling by trying to redefine things.
I guess I incorrectly assumed that everyone knew the difference between needing and wanting. My bad.
“Need” goes to the heart of what is enough. You have many times told us you needed 100% of replacement of your salaried income to feel safe. Yet as you also have repeatedly told us you always have plenty of excess income over at the end of the month and have never needed to call on savings. Even recently you’ve said being in a situation of having to drawdown only the pitiful amount of 1% of savings would make you nervous.
So I’m pretty sure I’m not the one who is confused over “need”.
Yes, enough to feel secure, to not worry or worry less about unforeseen events and to continue desired lifestyle.
I don’t think I said plenty of excess income. I have a balance in checking accounts most months. After 15 years retired and SS COLAs my pension and our combined SS benefits exceed my base pay of 15 years ago.
So that meets our needs defined as all ongoing living expenses, travel and the forms of saving I previously mentioned including charity.
But to some people meeting needs means basic living expenses and no more. I would not want to enter retirement with income just sufficient to cover basic needs, but many people must do so although I don’t think many HD readers.
So if you meant basic or subsistence level needs why not write it rather than trying to shoehorn the modifier in later? I think the common interpretation of “need” in the context of budgeting means all planned areas of expenditure.
I’ve used the kryptonite word so I expect you won’t grasp this.
Maybe to you but I looked it up and found this which is what I was using.
“In budgeting, a need is an essential expense that is necessary for your basic survival, health, and well-being. These are things you cannot reasonably live without and that, if not paid, would have immediate and significant negative consequences.”
In which case what you originally wrote was so evidently reductive it was totally unnecessary to say it. Of course everyone wants more than the minimum to ensure basic survival.
But need in usual language is used far more broadly
“I need a vacation”
“I need to get my nails done”
“”I need to get my golf score down”#
I’m pretty sure these are not matters of existential survival for the people that say them. Maybe they are in Joizey 😉
Edit to add:
# I’m not saying those aren’t perfectly reasonable extended “needs” to have for a quality of life in retirement. But this all goes back to the point of budgeting. I suspect very few people who’ve raised themselves above the poverty line or have never been there by virtue of family support have much idea of what their basic financial “need” is for survival. And because everyone is different whatever else they add in as a “reasonable need” will differ.
I suspect the reason RDQ has only a kneejerk reaction of “it’s deceiving and unworkable” is because he’s never put in the work necessary to reflect personally on what his total aggregate “needs” were in retirement to live a happy life with “enough” for “reasonable” contingencies.
“exceed my base pay of 15 years ago.”
Adjusted for inflation?
I wish, just exceed the 2009 number.
But that means your current income is NOT 100% of your final salary in real terms. The equivalent of $100,000 in 2009 is around $150,000 today. So you are in fact living on less than 100% of your final salary. Meanwhile, I retired on 40% of my final salary, and I am now living on 40% of today’s equivalent.
Obviously, my income was more than I needed. I could live comfortably, although not extravagantly, on less. And in this thread you are advocating living on 100% of your salary while working, not just saving enough for that in retirement. Most people don’t earn enough to live on less than 100%, others buy into the consumption economy, why are you so down on those who don’t?
“vicissitudes”! Is this the only descriptive plural noun you could find. I wonder how many had to look it up to get an idea of what you meant, including me. I must be too simple for this author.
It was good enough for FDR when promoting Social Security. I kind of liked the word.
I was reading something from a new FIRE blogger/YouTuber, Running on FIRE, recently that asked an interesting question. He asked, why does someone making $100k/yr have the same retirement date (~age 65) as some making $50k/yr? Now, this is a generalization about American retirement age, clearly, but many people don’t stop to think about when they’ll retire bc a mid-60s retirement age is a part of our cultural expectations. I just like the perspective taking, pointing out that actually you can control your retirement date if you disabuse yourself of assumptions like percentage-based savings goals, or fixed retirement dates. Just because you make 100k a year doesn’t mean you need to spend 65k a year, right? It’s just good critical thinking imo.
I don’t understand the question. What has income to do with retirement age? If you want to know how we arrived at 65 you have to ask Otto von Bismarck.
I would imagine that everyone strives to maintain most of their lifestyle in retirement and to suddenly drop a few levels to retire early is not practical or desirable.
Of course income has relevance to retirement age. Make enough money and you can retire whenever you like, although a lot of high income people can’t quit chasing “more”. Live comfortably but not extravagantly and you can retire earlier than your co-worker with expensive tastes. Someone with a stay at home spouse, four kids and a beach house will have to work longer than someone with a working spouse and no kids.
You’d be surprised I think. Not everyone wants or needs to maintain the same degree of performative stuff they had in their working lives or measures success by their paycheck each month. Perhaps no need for a flashy car or high end dining or sharp business attire and accessories.
Some people dream of moving to the country and hiking, dog walking, birdwatching and doing simple creative stuff.
Obviously this is the real dissonance in FIRE. The “normalised” people can’t conceive there is another way, the free spirits make them nervous and suspicious. Then it manifests in some of the suspicion put forward in this thread that FIRE is somehow un American, exploiting benefits, and a life without being under the cosh of work is unfulfilled.
Anyone who wants to limit or reduce lifestyle or live off the grid or whatever makes them happy is okay and none of my business.
But don’t present yourself as retired at 33 and only living off assets accumulated by then for the next sixty years. These people wouldn’t even receive Social Security or very little.
And in some cases they are supported by taxpayer funded programs, especially in healthcare.
I haven’t found any yet who don’t work in some manner for extra income.
FIRE has not been tested to old age and is not what some people promote it to be.
Anyone who wants to try it is welcome to do so as far as I am concerned – without a blog or book or consultation service though 😎
Maybe they’re just tired of justifying their lifestyle to naysayers, so they just don’t broadcast it. Remember that all of your examples are coming from 10s of people at most, and are not necessarily representative.
This is related to your ideology regarding budgeting and planning. (Why it doesn’t make sense to you)
It’s pretty obvious that your income levels create free cash flow (not the other way around). No matter how much someone earning 50k (after tax) wants it, they don’t have that other 50k that someone earning $100k has to think about, it’s just not there.
FIRE says (just like you) that savings are first. They take increased cash flow and put it to work. That’s a result of their focus on budgeting and planning. They go further, but that’s the underlying basic idea. I don’t think it’s very complicated.
So how does that relate to retirement age?
It has everything to do with when you can retire. From the FIRE perspective retirement is an amount of money, so the more you make, the more you can save, and so the faster you can stop working/exit the rat race. I will rescind my comment about percentage based savings goals, because that’s actually a foundational concept in FIRE (see Mr. Money Mustache’s “The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement“) I guess what I was going for is more that there’re no rules when it comes to retirement age, but people just blindly accept that they can’t retire until (at least) their 60s, especially young people these days.
It’s pretty simple even for RDQ. If you live a 100k lifestyle on 100k you need* the 100k in retirement if things aren’t going to be cut back.
If you live a 50k lifestyle on 100k and intend to continue that you can retire a lot earlier than the 100/100 guy or the 50k/50k guy if you’ve been investing the surplus appropriately.
*Reality is for most things change. Likely low/no mortgage payment, no need to divert gross income to savings, less need for commute costs, more time to cook. Against that medical bridges etc without a corporate payer etc.
Exactly. When I retired (early) I finished paying off my mortgage, I stopped saving for retirement, and my taxes went down significantly. I was fortunate to have both a pension, payable early, and retiree medical. I was already living well below my income.
Perhaps they are out there, but I have yet to find any FIRE person who is not earning money while “retired” and thus are not living off investments. I also have not read about any that have been at it beyond their 40s and thus the long term results are not yet known.
Look at all the people even on HD who retired in the 50s or later who still are concerned about inflation, withdrawals, health care costs, etc.
Anyone with sense is concerned about inflation and healthcare costs. I don’t know, or especially care, whether retiring at 53 counts as FIRE, but it’s worked out pretty well for me so far.
Just as with budgeting we seem to have issues with the definition of “retiring “. I retired from full time work at 53. I worked as a part time contractor for a few years but still considered myself retired. Apparently you would not.
Retired means stopping work permanently.
I began receiving my pension in July 2008, but worked up to 20 hours a week. I retired in January 2010.
Keep in mind we are talking about people who claim to retire in their 30s or early 40s
To you maybe. To others it might mean ability to work flexibly picking up consulting gigs when suitably interesting/rewarding or maybe developing a micro business.
And you’re pinning FIRE too narrowly. The extreme FIRErs might be “retiring” in their 30s with only 15 years earnings to fuel them but their extremism isn’t invalidating the concept. And yes I suspect most of them end up working or hustling in some capacity because a 50+ years rest of life is a long time.
It absolutely wouldn’t be for you. Even changing employer in a working life wasn’t for you.Too much responsibility on your own decisions and the need to live to a budget. Doesn’t mean it’s not for others.
Bismarck set the retirement age at 70. It only subsequently got lowered to 65.
https://humbledollar.com/2021/10/why-retire-at-65/
That’s right in 1916.
At Bismark’s introduction of SS the average life expectancy in Germeny was 38 years for men and 40 for women. A person of 65 could expect to live for 10 more years as a men, for 12 as a woman.
So no big risk to promise SS payments.
It wasn’t too much different in 1935.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that many of these FIRE people don’t have children?
Some do, some don’t. I think that’s more a product of the times (i.e. fewer kids are born these days than in the past) than of specifically FIRE choices. There are plenty of advocated for FIRE that do it on the basis of having more time for kids. Mr. Money Mustache comes to mind. Root of Good, mentioned below, they have 3 kids. I think the Frugalwoods people have kids too, but I don’t actually recall exactly.
There’s certainly a debate out there about the cost of kids, though. I actually had a coworker claim that it costs $1m to raise a kid through college, which is clearly far off, but the perception of kids as a financial impediment is there. I tend to side with the people who say kids are about as expensive as you make them, but what do I know?
Frugalwoods has two little girls (who have grown up so far with used clothes and toys) so she can demonstrate the value of frugal living. They heat with firewood thus adding to pollution and they grow some of their food.
Now they have lost their blog income, her consulting income and I suspect her book writing credibility and it would be interesting to see how it goes, but I suspect we will never know.
If they are financially independent, I suspect it will go perfectly fine. That’s the entire point of financial independence, that you can lose all those extraneous income streams and still keep your usual lifestyle.
And you could do a lot worse for kids than raise them in an environment with hand-me-downs (yes, those are used clothes) and home-grown food. I’m sure they’re not spending much time on their iPads.
I strongly suspect that, as in the cases of Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, Jim Bakker, et al., this latest “setback” for these folks will only be temporary.
FIRE movement in general, it means too many things to too many different people. I think a lot of FIRE people just mean not working for a company or another individual. Not what retired means to me either.
This is probably a bit tangential, but this got me thinking (again) about what the FIRE movement really stands for. The idea of retiring quite early, say in your 30s or 40s, just seems to me that you stop contributing to society in a certain way. For the vast majority of us, the work we do helps society function and progress.
For me, if $10 million dropped in my lap, I would still work. Because for my simple brain, it feels like I’m contributing and doing something meaningful and helpful.
I’m probably not typical in any way, but FIRE always seems a bit odd to me.
That’s not really true though, because you’re still participating in the economy even if you don’t work. You still buy things, go out with friends, maybe you are involved in community efforts, you pay taxes. There’s more virtue in life than working a job. Not that there’s anything wrong with working a job, but going back to Jacob and Early Retirement Extreme, he had a couple of posts regarding the nature of economic activity in America, namely that a major portion of that activity is digging ditches for other people to fill. I know that at some point in my future money will stop being a motivation to work, because I’ll have enough of it to live as I desire, and so the value of work will be dependent mainly on intrinsic motivations rather than extrinsic ones like money. You might love your job, but if you’re not willing to do it without compensation then your motivation is probably the money, not something else.
Just to stoke the flames a little more on this subject, I think this critiques the American work culture quite well:
“Perhaps, the best example I can think of to illustrate the insanity of “work as a good/duty” is tribal people. Yes, they hunt and forage, but they only do so to feed and clothe themselves. Once they have done so, there is no need to hunt more or cut down more plants. In fact doing so would be considered a great evil. Yet, in our society producing and taken more than we can use is considered a virtue. Perhaps it would be if it wasn’t so destructive to our long term well being.” (ERE, “a duty to work“)
I hear your point, but I still think that for many people, their work actively contributes to a healthy, functioning society. You don’t have to necessarily love your job (I don’t know if anyone really does!) but you can still feel that it’s important and helpful to others.
But most FIRE bloggers do seem to “work” in some capacity when they hit FI. They just often choose to do other stuff than the 9-5 (or 24-7 if they’ve really been pushing the accumulation) whether it’s monetizing their blog, contracting around other interests even investment roles based on the skills they have built.
The $10m question is one that everyone should ask themselves. I suspect lots of people certainly in younger life would still choose to work in some capacity but not necessarily in the career or place they are currently.
Of course in the real world lots of people blow through the 10m barrier and keep working because they measure themselves against others on those elevated rungs on the ladder.
I think that some people also work simply because they find meaning and satisfaction in their work.
Absolutely but if you can’t find meaning and satisfaction in things outside paid employment/own business it suggests a somewhat narrow and unfortunate outlook on life.
The meaning and satisfaction doesn’t need to be connected to the earning. It’s great for those who their work is their real passion in life but the treadmill of society I think rather overemphasises it. I tend to think there are a lot of people faking their love of their job because to admit otherwise is to “appear” a failure.
Of course, having a meaningful and satisfying job is a privilege. This discussions is discounting the people who are working two demanding and unfulfilling jobs just to get by.
I used to receive the Frugalwoods emails. After a while I realized I didn’t see them anymore, but did not follow-up on it. I always considered their documented lifestyle to be a bit extreme. Thanks for the update.
Morningstar’s Christine Benz wrote yesterday of speaking at a small overseas CampFI “camp meeting” in April: https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance/my-baptism-by-fire-lessons-financial-independence
Excellent article. “we all need to define financial independence on our own terms.” Yes, indeed. On reading the article I was reminded of how my life tracked that of other members of the FIRE movement in many ways, yet I was never a formal member and I did not retire early. Even when it became obvious that I could fully retire I did not. I wanted to continue to make certain contributions to society.
Joe, thanks of the link. It’s a typically excellent article by Christine.
I read it. Nothing wrong with FI if you are willing to do what is necessary. Actual retirement is a different matter.
Take a look at Root of Good and read a few months updates to see how this FIRE plays the system, uses public subsidies and generates income.
They’re smart, and good for them. Do you know anybody who would live on $24k/year for heavily subsidized healthcare? Most people don’t even know what a Roth IRA is, let alone a Roth conversion ladder. Is getting lots of scholarships for school considered playing the system? All their tax deductions were the result of scrupulous savings in various tax-deferred accounts, all perfectly legal. They have three kids, and God forbid they use an available tax deduction for them that literally everyone with kids uses. Idk, I didn’t see anything in their articles that suggested anything other perfectly legal and acceptable strategies for financial success. It really comes down to early planning, and being willing to do things that most other Americans are not.
Nobody said he was doing anything illegal. But if you follow him month after month much of what he writes doesn’t add up.
You’re right, I think I was reading too much into “uses public subsidies” there. I gotta stop watching the news and reading YouTube comments 😂
I have read ROG. Their lifestyle works for them, but it wouldn’t work for me. It seems to be too restrictive, especially when they travel. I wonder how their kids feel about their lifestyle, especially the older ones. Chris
Very interesting article, I hope Dick reads it. Key quote:
“I already knew that the FIRE community was more nuanced than many people give it credit for, but hearing people’s stories drove this home. Not everyone is committed to quitting work early or a frugal lifestyle. It’s the financial independence piece that’s the unifier, and I think it’s a worthy aspiration for all of us.”
My favorite early retirement blogger has always been Jacob Lund Fisker over at Early Retirement Extreme. It’s just basically an archive that reposts itself nowadays, but it was really the blog that opened my eyes to how ludicrous the average American’s lifestyle is. I remember being extremely impressed that he had his spending down below 10k annually living in the Bay Area in the 2000s. A lot of his lifestyle choices I appreciated, like biking for transportation, using the library instead of buying books, cooking from scratch, and generally stopping to think if it’s possible to fix something for cheaper on your own instead of buying a repair or replacement. To me it felt very sensible, yet these are not things our society values at large. I follow the FIRE principles for the most part myself, but I’m not militant about it. I live on less than anyone I know, but I’m certainly not even close to 10k a year. That would be unreal.
I used to read ERE also, but had a hard time relating to Jacob, since I was in a different life stage at the time. I thought his practices and advice were a little more than just being frugal. I wondered how his lifestyle would be different if he was in my life stage at the time: married with kids in HS and college. I could tell in his writings that he was brilliant, though. Chris
I enjoyed his writing too. Would love to know how he’s doing.
Last I heard he’s working at a hedge fund in Chicago trading securities. Doing what he loves, apparently.
You have to dig into Jacob’s forums to learn about his current interests etc. He didn’t stay at the hedge fund gig all that long, then he went back to mastering more skills. He has had a couple of meet-ups with the smallish group of followers, and from what I can tell he is still living very frugally and engaging on his forum. Still a man much to be admired for living his values as espoused in his book and website.
One other note about Jacob that I always admired: his motivation for FIRE was primarily an environmental one. As he was a PhD astrophysicist, he had a solid understanding of the planet’s limits.
Dick, I get your concern about FIRE as setting people up for a difficult retirement once they maybe can no longer work, but it’s important to acknowledge that environmentalism is often a key motivation for FIRE. These folks often want to live with a very small footprint and don’t need a huge bank of funds.
Anecdote =/= data.
Lots of bloggers run for a while then slow down or stop. Nothing to do with FIRE. Maybe the personal satisfaction they got from it wanes, maybe it becomes a chore rather than a fun way to communicate, maybe they even run of of things to say. Plus y’know life.
Maybe getting out of the workforce grind to earn money on her own terms was always part of the plan, Doesn’t invalidate the FIRE concept which is basically take control of your spending and your savings rate/decisions and you probably don’t need to work (full-time/for someone else) as long as you think. But more importantly once you have FI you don’t need to stay in a job you hate because independence means choices.
And re the perjorative re dropping out — presumably on the same criteria your wife dropped out permanently in her 20s….
This had a great deal to do with FIRE.
just curious, how old are you? Trying to understand your perspective on things, which unique at times.
You mean I’m not all old man yells at clouds?
I haven’t yet crossed the rubicon from a near full-time job to something else but I’m not far off. I suspect though it puts me closer to your older kids in age than you.
FWIW I also believe that there is a lot of common sense repackaged as stunning insight in FIRE but actually as a motivational tool for getting people empowered to take control of their lives it is a net positive. If it works for people what’s the harm? That their dreams don’t quite pan out because investments don’t work in a purely linear fashion?
I do feel there is a bit of a generational bias against FIRE as in why should those pesky kids get to quit work at age XX when I had paid my dues till FRA? Or “I’m sensible with my money, you’re frugal, those kids are just too cheap”.
I guess there is a potential macro harm in if too many people get too much into FIRE then the working population drops below a level efficient for a successful economy. But then humans do have a habit of breeding, getting divorced, remarrying, rebreeding, wanting bigger, better, newer stuff which will probably be enough of a cap on that sort of behaviour.
I had you figured for between 35-45. My oldest is 55.
Thank you. .I think that’s a compliment.
And if you think a Gen Xer is that different wait until you see what the Gen Zers think and how they see the world of work in the context of their lifeplans.
I have colleagues who drive me nuts because they’ll message constantly rather than actually talk even when we sit a few feet away.
Dick, thanks. I never really followed Mrs Frugalwoods, but did follow some of the FIRE people for awhile. They are nothing new, IMO. Just a modern incarnation of people like Mrs Dacyczyn of the Tightwad Gazette and others. Guessing every generation has these folks. Thanks for updating about her. She was a biggie in her day for awhile. Chris
Probably just a side hustle. Nothing more, nothing less. One has to spend their free time doing something.
David Friedman says that the value of something determines if one should pay for it. Some have flipped this to become “If it is valuable then I must be paid to provide it”.
Pretty lucrative side hustle as she provided consulting services to 25 clients at an average of about $3,000 each.
Sounds better than a 1% AUM.
That would depend very much on the AUM. That’s only 75k on those 25 clients.
I meant that charging a flat fee is better for the client than charging an AUM fee.
Oh, yes. That it is 👍
I think many HDers probably obsess to some extent about things financial. I think maybe the FIRE advocates pursue their lifestyle in a near fanatical manner. It’s interesting that the consent order stated that no one was harmed, I mean, would a dedicated FIRE advocate ever pay money for advice?
I don’t think it was FIRE folk she was advising. And, the great majority of her followers and commentators on her blog were women.
What does the gender of her followers have to do with anything?