Early-retired 35 year old with $1 million

[TomatoTomahto]

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

I don't think most of us have a problem with the LCOL single lifestyle. OP would not be the first such person to decide (or have it happen without a decision) that he will have a child or two with his GF. Picking up where you left off can be difficult, especially if the economy goes into the doldrums.

Make hay while the sun shines.

[EnjoyIt]

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

I don't think most of us have a problem with the LCOL single lifestyle. OP would not be the first such person to decide (or have it happen without a decision) that he will have a child or two with his GF. Picking up where you left off can be difficult, especially if the economy goes into the doldrums.

Make hay while the sun shines.

Life is short. Why spend it doing something that you hate just because someone thinks you need more hay?

[avalpert]

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

I don't think most of us have a problem with the LCOL single lifestyle. OP would not be the first such person to decide (or have it happen without a decision) that he will have a child or two with his GF. Picking up where you left off can be difficult, especially if the economy goes into the doldrums.

Make hay while the sun shines.

Life is short. Why spend it doing something that you hate just because someone thinks you need more hay?

Because life isn't really all that short and the single 35 year old out playing in the sunshine is more likely to be the married 55 year old with kids who needs hay than not.

[p0nyboy]

You're going to be stretched thin with only $1million at age 35. You should keep working for now...

[MrNewEngland]

What career are you in? Some careers have skillsets that become obsolete when you don't use them and some can shake the rust off pretty easily. If you want to retire go ahead and do it, if you underestimated your expenses you could always go back to work somewhere. It's not a completely permanent decision.

[10YearPlan]

Sure you could retire now with $1M but between your age and potential variables (wife/kids), I'd probably wait 2-3 years to see how that plays out and whether you decide to pursue getting married/having kids and whether the $ works for 2-3 of you. But mostly my questions/concerns come from the non-financial angle, including:
1. What will you do with your time? I presume given your savings rate that you are in a high paying job and one that is most likely intellectually stimulating. Will you have an outlet for your more cerebral needs? Social needs?
2. If girlfriend/future wife continues to work, how will that affect your dynamic?
3. If you decide or need to "un-retire" at some point, how easy is that to do?

[EnjoyIt]

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

I don't think most of us have a problem with the LCOL single lifestyle. OP would not be the first such person to decide (or have it happen without a decision) that he will have a child or two with his GF. Picking up where you left off can be difficult, especially if the economy goes into the doldrums.

Make hay while the sun shines.

Life is short. Why spend it doing something that you hate just because someone thinks you need more hay?

Because life isn't really all that short and the single 35 year old out playing in the sunshine is more likely to be the married 55 year old with kids who needs hay than not.

Someone who retires at 35 with $1million only spending 3% will likely have way more than $1million at 55. Plus they will get a small bump at 70 for social security. Plus I'm sure OP will make some money here and there making his withdrawal rate under 3% allowing wealth to grow even further.

[avalpert]

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

I don't think most of us have a problem with the LCOL single lifestyle. OP would not be the first such person to decide (or have it happen without a decision) that he will have a child or two with his GF. Picking up where you left off can be difficult, especially if the economy goes into the doldrums.

Make hay while the sun shines.

Life is short. Why spend it doing something that you hate just because someone thinks you need more hay?

Because life isn't really all that short and the single 35 year old out playing in the sunshine is more likely to be the married 55 year old with kids who needs hay than not.

Someone who retires at 35 with $1million only spending 3% will likely have way more than $1million at 55.

That assume they are only spending 3% at 40, 45, 50 and 55 - that is an assumption I find questionable particularly when your baseline is as a single 35 year old.

Plus they will get a small bump at 70 for social security.

Very small bump if they only have ~13 years of earnings (even if it is 13 years of max earnings)

[randomguy]

Plus they will get a small bump at 70 for social security.

Very small bump if they only have ~13 years of earnings (even if it is 13 years of max earnings)

He will be looking at something on the order of 1500+/month. That is 50% of expenses. That is a decent bump.

In the end if the OP is happy living on 30k or so/year he is fine. If he wants to live on 60k/year, he isn't.Debating on which choice will make him happier is fruitless as it is very personal.

[learning_head]

Two of my best friends are a man aged 67 and his wife aged 63. They planned to work another year or two, then retire and do what they wanted. Last week she was rushed to the emergency room with a cerebral hemorrhage caused by a brain cancer. She will not live another year.

They could have retired 10 years ago but they wanted to be absolutely certain they would not run out of money for 30 years.

There are lots of unknown variables in the future. If you are 35 and have a million dollars and you are tired of working, think about what you really want to do and then do it.

Very inspirational story IMO.

Depending on their interests, single people could easily enjoy life on 30k in LCOL area. Further, if you trade in 400k house for 200k house in LCOL, you are likely going to get lower taxes and maintenance along with that; so I think you have quite a buffer there. SS will be another buffer and I don't think it will be insignificant compared to your 30k/yr expenses but you'd have to check the formula and double check for inflation. That balances out health care cost concerns IMO.

Your major unknown at this point IMO is support for your gf and kids.

If you go family route, I'd keep working to make sure any kids you plan to have seem healthy; AND work out roughly how much you plan to spend on kids (latest figures I heard average at $240k / kid w/o college).

If you decide to stay single or have no kids, you are probably as ready as your certainty in your expenses.

[EnjoyIt]

I don't think most of us have a problem with the LCOL single lifestyle. OP would not be the first such person to decide (or have it happen without a decision) that he will have a child or two with his GF. Picking up where you left off can be difficult, especially if the economy goes into the doldrums.

Make hay while the sun shines.

Life is short. Why spend it doing something that you hate just because someone thinks you need more hay?

Because life isn't really all that short and the single 35 year old out playing in the sunshine is more likely to be the married 55 year old with kids who needs hay than not.

Someone who retires at 35 with $1million only spending 3% will likely have way more than $1million at 55.

That assume they are only spending 3% at 40, 45, 50 and 55 - that is an assumption I find questionable particularly when your baseline is as a single 35 year old.

Plus they will get a small bump at 70 for social security.

Very small bump if they only have ~13 years of earnings (even if it is 13 years of max earnings)

How small at the first bend point? Even $1k/month will increase their spending potential significantly.

Despite the emotional discomfort many on this thread have expressed, mathematically and historically OP is good to retire.

[smitcat]

The math works but in my case the life would not even be close.
I have had large life changes numerous times in life - and most of them happened after 31.
Knowing what you are going to want to need / spend / do at 65 when you are 55 is not so easy at all.
Knowing what you are really going to want to be doing in 20 years is just about impossible.

There were incredibly fulfilling years striving to do more and extra things whether they involved money or not.

[avalpert]

Life is short. Why spend it doing something that you hate just because someone thinks you need more hay?

Because life isn't really all that short and the single 35 year old out playing in the sunshine is more likely to be the married 55 year old with kids who needs hay than not.

Someone who retires at 35 with $1million only spending 3% will likely have way more than $1million at 55.

That assume they are only spending 3% at 40, 45, 50 and 55 - that is an assumption I find questionable particularly when your baseline is as a single 35 year old.

Plus they will get a small bump at 70 for social security.

Very small bump if they only have ~13 years of earnings (even if it is 13 years of max earnings)

How small at the first bend point? Even $1k/month will increase their spending potential significantly.

Despite the emotional discomfort many on this thread have expressed, mathematically and historically OP is good to retire.

I don't think historically most single 35 year-olds with high-earning potential remained content with $30k/year lifestyles for future decades - this is just a hunch, I can't prove it, but I have high confidence it is true. So no, I don't think he is good to retire - not because of 'emotional discomfort' but because I think he is being short-sighted about what he may want in the future and would be prematurely cutting off many options he may find he would have preferred.

[EnjoyIt]

Because life isn't really all that short and the single 35 year old out playing in the sunshine is more likely to be the married 55 year old with kids who needs hay than not.

Someone who retires at 35 with $1million only spending 3% will likely have way more than $1million at 55.

That assume they are only spending 3% at 40, 45, 50 and 55 - that is an assumption I find questionable particularly when your baseline is as a single 35 year old.

Plus they will get a small bump at 70 for social security.

Very small bump if they only have ~13 years of earnings (even if it is 13 years of max earnings)

How small at the first bend point? Even $1k/month will increase their spending potential significantly.

Despite the emotional discomfort many on this thread have expressed, mathematically and historically OP is good to retire.

I don't think historically most single 35 year-olds with high-earning potential remained content with $30k/year lifestyles for future decades - this is just a hunch, I can't prove it, but I have high confidence it is true. So no, I don't think he is good to retire - not because of 'emotional discomfort' but because I think he is being short-sighted about what he may want in the future and would be prematurely cutting off many options he may find he would have preferred.

Historically a 4% withdrawal leads to increased wealth over the decades. A 3% withdrawal will increase even further so that OP will be able to spend more and more as years go by. This is especially true if OP is able to make some money throughout "early retirement."

[avalpert]

Someone who retires at 35 with $1million only spending 3% will likely have way more than $1million at 55.

That assume they are only spending 3% at 40, 45, 50 and 55 - that is an assumption I find questionable particularly when your baseline is as a single 35 year old.

Plus they will get a small bump at 70 for social security.

Very small bump if they only have ~13 years of earnings (even if it is 13 years of max earnings)

How small at the first bend point? Even $1k/month will increase their spending potential significantly.

Despite the emotional discomfort many on this thread have expressed, mathematically and historically OP is good to retire.

I don't think historically most single 35 year-olds with high-earning potential remained content with $30k/year lifestyles for future decades - this is just a hunch, I can't prove it, but I have high confidence it is true. So no, I don't think he is good to retire - not because of 'emotional discomfort' but because I think he is being short-sighted about what he may want in the future and would be prematurely cutting off many options he may find he would have preferred.

Historically a 4% withdrawal leads to increased wealth over the decades. A 3% withdrawal will increase even further so that OP will be able to spend more and more as years go by. This is especially true if OP is able to make some money throughout "early retirement."

Historically, longer retirements are more susceptible to sequence of return risk (it increase non-linearly as time increases), we are deep into the economic cycle (can't predict when it will turn but I'd be less confident of it holding off now then 3 years ago) and valuations are historically high - all those point to higher risk of early retirement failure, not lower and make counting on being able to increase spending down the line particularly dangerous.

Sure, if he doesn't actually retire then he retains much of the flexibility - but the it isn't 'early retirement', is it?

[deltaneutral83]

OP,
The people her are rediculously conservative.
You have $1million and want to live on $30k. Historically your assets will continue to grow over the years allowing you some lifestyle creep to your $30k/yr. This is the same crowd that tells a 50 year old they can't retire on $2.5 million spending $80k/yr.

I suspect that during your retirement you will find many ways to make a few thousand here and there making your decision even less risky.

I see a worst case scenario for you would be a massive economic downturn with a loss in healthcare subsidies. That may force you back into the workforce until the markets recover. Even a minimum wage job would be plenty to allow you to survive that calamity and more than likely put you in a far better economic position as compared to today.

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

Everything you've said revolves around probability. 90% is a great FT % in basketball, it is not in terms of a SWR Monte Carlo simulation for your well being and quality of life. Market getting cut in half (which just happened) with a health situation that would prevent you from working in the future? Probably happened to a bunch of people last time around in 2008. 3% SWR for 60+ years with all likelihood of expenses going up, No thanks. It's also much harder to predict expenses for 60 years vs 30 with the 30 weighted toward Medicare and SS.

[charriso1973]

OP,
The people her are rediculously conservative.
You have $1million and want to live on $30k. Historically your assets will continue to grow over the years allowing you some lifestyle creep to your $30k/yr. This is the same crowd that tells a 50 year old they can't retire on $2.5 million spending $80k/yr.

I suspect that during your retirement you will find many ways to make a few thousand here and there making your decision even less risky.

I see a worst case scenario for you would be a massive economic downturn with a loss in healthcare subsidies. That may force you back into the workforce until the markets recover. Even a minimum wage job would be plenty to allow you to survive that calamity and more than likely put you in a far better economic position as compared to today.

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

Everything you've said revolves around probability. 90% is a great FT % in basketball, it is not in terms of a SWR Monte Carlo simulation for your well being and quality of life. Market getting cut in half (which just happened) with a health situation that would prevent you from working in the future? Probably happened to a bunch of people last time around in 2008. 3% SWR for 60+ years with all likelihood of expenses going up, No thanks. It's also much harder to predict expenses for 60 years vs 30 with the 30 weighted toward Medicare and SS.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just inquisitive... If 90% isn't a good target for Monte Carlo simulation, what are you shooting for?

[scorcher31]

Again I'm for the 2 million mark. I'm guessing your a very high paid individual like a physician, especially given the burnout. If i'm right I bet you can double to 2 million in 3-4 years max and then truly be done with work. You then likely would not need to ever return to work force. Others had mentioned you continuing to earn money in retirement. I know that's not something I would want to do. As long as it's safe mentally/financially/physically power through to that 2 million mark. That way if the market loses 50% your still in good shape, if insurance costs raise your still fine. If you slowly increase your spending a bit from 30k your still fine in your LCOL. To me it's a way to significantly decrease the risks of your plan falling through. As for the monte carlo simulation why not shoot for 100%. For most people its not practical, but your so young with such a high net worth it's easy to ensure and still get out soon.

[scorcher31]

OP,
The people her are rediculously conservative.
You have $1million and want to live on $30k. Historically your assets will continue to grow over the years allowing you some lifestyle creep to your $30k/yr. This is the same crowd that tells a 50 year old they can't retire on $2.5 million spending $80k/yr.

I suspect that during your retirement you will find many ways to make a few thousand here and there making your decision even less risky.

I see a worst case scenario for you would be a massive economic downturn with a loss in healthcare subsidies. That may force you back into the workforce until the markets recover. Even a minimum wage job would be plenty to allow you to survive that calamity and more than likely put you in a far better economic position as compared to today.

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

Everything you've said revolves around probability. 90% is a great FT % in basketball, it is not in terms of a SWR Monte Carlo simulation for your well being and quality of life. Market getting cut in half (which just happened) with a health situation that would prevent you from working in the future? Probably happened to a bunch of people last time around in 2008. 3% SWR for 60+ years with all likelihood of expenses going up, No thanks. It's also much harder to predict expenses for 60 years vs 30 with the 30 weighted toward Medicare and SS.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just inquisitive... If 90% isn't a good target for Monte Carlo simulation, what are you shooting for?

I think for 99%+ of the population 80% on up is excellent on a monte carlo. But when someone can rapidly increase their income and likely has a ton of potential years left to earn I would shoot for 100%. Especially when they won't have social security or medicare in the near future if they even exist in 30 years. Also given the factor that this really has been a long bull and although we can't predict the future, there probably is a bear coming eventually in the next decade

[dumbbunny]

BonziBuddy:

Welcome to the Bogleheads Forum!

You can use this monte-carlo tool to give you the possible outcomes for a one-million dollar portfolio using various withdrawal rates:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/mon ... sisResults

Best wishes.
Taylor

Or www.cfiresim.com

[EnjoyIt]

OP,
The people her are rediculously conservative.
You have $1million and want to live on $30k. Historically your assets will continue to grow over the years allowing you some lifestyle creep to your $30k/yr. This is the same crowd that tells a 50 year old they can't retire on $2.5 million spending $80k/yr.

I suspect that during your retirement you will find many ways to make a few thousand here and there making your decision even less risky.

I see a worst case scenario for you would be a massive economic downturn with a loss in healthcare subsidies. That may force you back into the workforce until the markets recover. Even a minimum wage job would be plenty to allow you to survive that calamity and more than likely put you in a far better economic position as compared to today.

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

Everything you've said revolves around probability. 90% is a great FT % in basketball, it is not in terms of a SWR Monte Carlo simulation for your well being and quality of life. Market getting cut in half (which just happened) with a health situation that would prevent you from working in the future? Probably happened to a bunch of people last time around in 2008. 3% SWR for 60+ years with all likelihood of expenses going up, No thanks. It's also much harder to predict expenses for 60 years vs 30 with the 30 weighted toward Medicare and SS.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just inquisitive... If 90% isn't a good target for Monte Carlo simulation, what are you shooting for?

I think for 99%+ of the population 80% on up is excellent on a monte carlo. But when someone can rapidly increase their income and likely has a ton of potential years left to earn I would shoot for 100%. Especially when they won't have social security or medicare in the near future if they even exist in 30 years. Also given the factor that this really has been a long bull and although we can't predict the future, there probably is a bear coming eventually in the next decade

4% has historically worked for most retirees hitting a bear market early on. Although 100% guarantee of nit running out of money is impossible 3% is practically bullet proof.

[runner540]

OP,
The people her are rediculously conservative.
You have $1million and want to live on $30k. Historically your assets will continue to grow over the years allowing you some lifestyle creep to your $30k/yr. This is the same crowd that tells a 50 year old they can't retire on $2.5 million spending $80k/yr.

I suspect that during your retirement you will find many ways to make a few thousand here and there making your decision even less risky.

I see a worst case scenario for you would be a massive economic downturn with a loss in healthcare subsidies. That may force you back into the workforce until the markets recover. Even a minimum wage job would be plenty to allow you to survive that calamity and more than likely put you in a far better economic position as compared to today.

Enjoy your early retirement and come back to this thread once a year telling all these neighsayers how wrong they all are. A single person living on $30k/yr in a low cost of living area with no need to pay rent is a better lifestyle than most Americans.

Everything you've said revolves around probability. 90% is a great FT % in basketball, it is not in terms of a SWR Monte Carlo simulation for your well being and quality of life. Market getting cut in half (which just happened) with a health situation that would prevent you from working in the future? Probably happened to a bunch of people last time around in 2008. 3% SWR for 60+ years with all likelihood of expenses going up, No thanks. It's also much harder to predict expenses for 60 years vs 30 with the 30 weighted toward Medicare and SS.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just inquisitive... If 90% isn't a good target for Monte Carlo simulation, what are you shooting for?

I think for 99%+ of the population 80% on up is excellent on a monte carlo. But when someone can rapidly increase their income and likely has a ton of potential years left to earn I would shoot for 100%. Especially when they won't have social security or medicare in the near future if they even exist in 30 years. Also given the factor that this really has been a long bull and although we can't predict the future, there probably is a bear coming eventually in the next decade

4% has historically worked for most retirees hitting a bear market early on. Although 100% guarantee of nit running out of money is impossible 3% is practically bullet proof.

Enjoyit, the 4% "rule" was to avoid running out of money for 30 years. Doesn't apply in this scenario of 50-60 year timeframe. Not sure if work has been done to validate 3% over that long time frame.

Wade Pfau explains: http://www.barrons.com/articles/retirem ... 1428722900

[market timer]

A paid off house and $1mn is enough to survive, even with a family. However, I suspect you'll find your way back into the work force again, sooner rather than later.

When I tested the waters of early retirement, of course it was great at first, but I started to feel that I was squandering my talents and missing the opportunity to self-actualize. There's a great quote by Charles Kingsley: "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” So at first I took many courses online, then started a new career. It's good to wake up with a challenge. Kids are a challenge, and I have a couple of those, but I felt I'd developed this tool in my head over many years in school, and it had to be used outside the home. It's like that fighting dog in Amores Perros--just can't sit quietly in a room with other dogs without killing them. Once you've been trained to do something, it's hard to abandon. Fortunately, I did stop grinding my teeth in early retirement.

Regarding family, I initially thought a budget of ~$50K/year would be ample, but we are now at $100K/year spending. The money just flies out of your pockets so fast. A kid starts to run a fever and suddenly it's a $2000 hospital bill because you don't want to take any chances. As a single person, I could fly myself to Europe on frequent flyer miles from credit card signup bonuses, now I have to buy at least three seats with cash. And even though I love my kids dearly, it's refreshing to leave the house to go to work, a quiet place where I have my own room.

[gips]

I doubt any 35 yo can retire with $1mm. let me put it differently, while I'm sure there are some 35 year olds that can retire with $1mm, I believe the failure rate is close to 100%. I haven't read the entire thread, but here are some factors that come to mind:

- inflation
- increased expenses
- adverse market conditions
- boredom

Personally, I'd shoot for a number that allows me to triple current expenses over the course of a lifetime. the saying, "make hay while the sun shines"" comes to mind.

[Hyperborea]

4% has historically worked for most retirees hitting a bear market early on. Although 100% guarantee of nit running out of money is impossible 3% is practically bullet proof.

Enjoyit, the 4% "rule" was to avoid running out of money for 30 years. Doesn't apply in this scenario of 50-60 year timeframe. Not sure if work has been done to validate 3% over that long time frame.

Wade Pfau explains: http://www.barrons.com/articles/retirem ... 1428722900

There is some really great work coming out of Early Retirement Now on withdrawal rates and a lot variations in a 21 part series and growing. He looks at long retirements in particular - 40, 50, and 60 year retirements. The two general guides coming from his studies are that a longer retirement needs to be more heavily weighted towards equities and withdraw at a lower rate (generally around 3-3.5%).

This has been the general thought in the RE community going back 15-20 years to intercst's board on the Motley Fool but there were no detailed studies before.

[staythecourse]

When I tested the waters of early retirement, of course it was great at first, but I started to feel that I was squandering my talents and missing the opportunity to self-actualize. There's a great quote by Charles Kingsley: "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” So at first I took many courses online, then started a new career. It's good to wake up with a challenge. Kids are a challenge, and I have a couple of those, but I felt I'd developed this tool in my head over many years in school, and it had to be used outside the home. It's like that fighting dog in Amores Perros--just can't sit quietly in a room with other dogs without killing them. Once you've been trained to do something, it's hard to abandon. Fortunately, I did stop grinding my teeth in early retirement.

100% agree. Several years ago I wanted to make bank as soon as possible and then ER. What I found out is I actually like what I do. What I didn't like was the work situation I was in so I changed it. Now I don't think I will ever totally retire. For many making money is the end goal of work for others it is finding something meaningful to do to help society in some way and/ or feel "enthuiastic about".

Good luck.

p.s. Wanted to give you a head's up that I a stealing that quote.

[Hyperborea]

When I tested the waters of early retirement, of course it was great at first, but I started to feel that I was squandering my talents and missing the opportunity to self-actualize. There's a great quote by Charles Kingsley: "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” So at first I took many courses online, then started a new career. It's good to wake up with a challenge. Kids are a challenge, and I have a couple of those, but I felt I'd developed this tool in my head over many years in school, and it had to be used outside the home. It's like that fighting dog in Amores Perros--just can't sit quietly in a room with other dogs without killing them. Once you've been trained to do something, it's hard to abandon. Fortunately, I did stop grinding my teeth in early retirement.

100% agree. Several years ago I wanted to make bank as soon as possible and then ER. What I found out is I actually like what I do. What I didn't like was the work situation I was in so I changed it. Now I don't think I will ever totally retire. For many making money is the end goal of work for others it is finding something meaningful to do to help society in some way and/ or feel "enthuiastic about".

Good luck.

p.s. Wanted to give you a head's up that I a stealing that quote.

That's great if you can find something like that to do that pays you money. And that you continue to like doing. And that others want you to continue doing. Doesn't always work out like that.

[randomguy]

When I tested the waters of early retirement, of course it was great at first, but I started to feel that I was squandering my talents and missing the opportunity to self-actualize. There's a great quote by Charles Kingsley: "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” So at first I took many courses online, then started a new career. It's good to wake up with a challenge. Kids are a challenge, and I have a couple of those, but I felt I'd developed this tool in my head over many years in school, and it had to be used outside the home. It's like that fighting dog in Amores Perros--just can't sit quietly in a room with other dogs without killing them. Once you've been trained to do something, it's hard to abandon. Fortunately, I did stop grinding my teeth in early retirement.

100% agree. Several years ago I wanted to make bank as soon as possible and then ER. What I found out is I actually like what I do. What I didn't like was the work situation I was in so I changed it. Now I don't think I will ever totally retire. For many making money is the end goal of work for others it is finding something meaningful to do to help society in some way and/ or feel "enthuiastic about".

Good luck.

p.s. Wanted to give you a head's up that I a stealing that quote.

There are a lot of people that work only to fund their passion. If they have the money, why not do the passion 24/7? For some people that passion is work (Zuckerburgh doesn't show up at work on Monday for the mone). Others have something that doesn't pay money (say skiing, painting, ....). And a lot are in the middle (feel good about accomplishing something but 20 hours/week would be enough). I have no clue if the OP plans to sit home and watch TV all day or has plans to hike the across america.

But that is getting well beyond the financial part that you can apply logic to. It is easy to say 30k/year out of a million is doable and if things go bad getting another 10k/year from flipping burgers would be enough to fix it. Figuring out if working or retiring makes you happier is hard to say. I will say I took the money (i.e. I want to live on 160k/year not 80k) when facing the choice. But I also know that I can spend money on things that will make me happy. YMMV.

[wrl]

As some others have mentioned, the key is whether you want to get married and/or have kids. If you stay single, you can get by with your frugal lifestyle.

If you get married, its not your call anymore. Your spending will be a function of what your wife wants to spend and the kids. Not to mention that half the marriages fail, so she will get half your assets (or more if you have kids) if that happens. Alimony can be an issue, some states (California) have alimony for life, so you will pay that bill until you die. Its seems terrible to think about a failed marriage before you even get married, but you have to for financial planning. If there was a 50% chance of a market crash where your would have to sell at a 50% loss at least, wouldn't you consider that in your planning?

Kids cost hundreds of thousands to raise each (several studies on this on the internet) until they are 18, not including the $100,000-$200,000 college cost each. I have three (and am still married after 25 years), so have experienced these expenses! That said, the kids have been the best part of my life by far.

At your age, you would need $4-$5 million plus at least to deal with marriage and multiple kids expenses if you are not working in my opinion.

[oilrig]

I have thought about this a lot, I am 32 years old. If I were to do it, I would probably live off investments and drive for Uber or wait tables part time. You can easily make an extra $20-30k driving for uber part time, whenever you feel like it. Thats the route I would take if I was in your shoes.

[staythecourse]

When I tested the waters of early retirement, of course it was great at first, but I started to feel that I was squandering my talents and missing the opportunity to self-actualize. There's a great quote by Charles Kingsley: "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” So at first I took many courses online, then started a new career. It's good to wake up with a challenge. Kids are a challenge, and I have a couple of those, but I felt I'd developed this tool in my head over many years in school, and it had to be used outside the home. It's like that fighting dog in Amores Perros--just can't sit quietly in a room with other dogs without killing them. Once you've been trained to do something, it's hard to abandon. Fortunately, I did stop grinding my teeth in early retirement.

100% agree. Several years ago I wanted to make bank as soon as possible and then ER. What I found out is I actually like what I do. What I didn't like was the work situation I was in so I changed it. Now I don't think I will ever totally retire. For many making money is the end goal of work for others it is finding something meaningful to do to help society in some way and/ or feel "enthuiastic about".

Good luck.

p.s. Wanted to give you a head's up that I a stealing that quote.

That's great if you can find something like that to do that pays you money. And that you continue to like doing. And that others want you to continue doing. Doesn't always work out like that.

Very good points.

Good luck.

[Slacker]

I think for 99%+ of the population 80% on up is excellent on a monte carlo. But when someone can rapidly increase their income and likely has a ton of potential years left to earn I would shoot for 100%. Especially when they won't have social security or medicare in the near future if they even exist in 30 years. Also given the factor that this really has been a long bull and although we can't predict the future, there probably is a bear coming eventually in the next decade

4% has historically worked for most retirees hitting a bear market early on. Although 100% guarantee of nit running out of money is impossible 3% is practically bullet proof.

Enjoyit, the 4% "rule" was to avoid running out of money for 30 years. Doesn't apply in this scenario of 50-60 year timeframe. Not sure if work has been done to validate 3% over that long time frame.

Wade Pfau explains: http://www.barrons.com/articles/retirem ... 1428722900

Bengen Rule Article, William P Bengen, Oct 94
However, the perpetual withdrawal rate he cited in 1994 was 3.5% with 4% being good for at least 33years in all cases studied and good for 50 years 41 out of 51 scenarios studied. This was with a 50/50 portfolio.

A 75/25 portfolio with a 4% withdrawal rate hit 50 year longevities 46 times out of 51 with the few times that it didn't hit 50 years being only 1-2 years less than the 50/50 portfolio (32 years being the shortest longevity in this scenario) and one scenario hitting about 43 years.

Bengen recently revised his "4% rule" to be slightly higher.

[Bigbonds]

As some others have mentioned, the key is whether you want to get married and/or have kids. If you stay single, you can get by with your frugal lifestyle.

If you get married, its not your call anymore. Your spending will be a function of what your wife wants to spend and the kids. Not to mention that half the marriages fail, so she will get half your assets (or more if you have kids) if that happens. Alimony can be an issue, some states (California) have alimony for life, so you will pay that bill until you die. Its seems terrible to think about a failed marriage before you even get married, but you have to for financial planning. If there was a 50% chance of a market crash where your would have to sell at a 50% loss at least, wouldn't you consider that in your planning?

Kids cost hundreds of thousands to raise each (several studies on this on the internet) until they are 18, not including the $100,000-$200,000 college cost each. I have three (and am still married after 25 years), so have experienced these expenses! That said, the kids have been the best part of my life by far.

At your age, you would need $4-$5 million plus at least to deal with marriage and multiple kids expenses if you are not working in my opinion.

Wow! I’m guessing you live in California or NY if you think it’s that expensive to raise kids. If you ever want a little perspective check out RootofGood.com guy was an engineer, early retired at 33 with only a little more than the OP, has 3 kids, travels and post his complete monthly budget and income statements online. His numbers are no where near what you are saying.

I’d personally prefer to ask advice from someone who has done ER successfully than someone who hasn’t.

[soupcxan]

Wow! I’m guessing you live in California or NY if you think it’s that expensive to raise kids. If you ever want a little perspective check out RootofGood.com guy was an engineer, early retired at 33 with only a little more than the OP, has 3 kids, travels and post his complete monthly budget and income statements online. His numbers are no where near what you are saying.

I’d personally prefer to ask advice from someone who has done ER successfully than someone who hasn’t.

That's also the guy who is ripping off his state's Medicaid program so he doesn't have to pay for his kids' healthcare. Not exactly a good role model, nor is his scheme sustainable.

[WhiteMaxima]

35 years is too young to retire. What if there is hyper-inflation? You are out of job for so long and no longer hireable. What if you have serious illness and need 0.5 mil to treat. Don't even think about it.

[TheNightsToCome]

I have thought about this a lot, I am 32 years old. If I were to do it, I would probably live off investments and drive for Uber or wait tables part time. You can easily make an extra $20-30k driving for uber part time, whenever you feel like it. Thats the route I would take if I was in your shoes.

Is it really better to make something like minimum wage doing menial labor rather than to continue for a while longer in the well-compensated job you were trained to do?

I had just about every low wage job imaginable during my school years. I'd do it again if I had to, but I'd never make that a part of my base-case plan.

[Slacker]

35 years is too young to retire. What if there is hyper-inflation? You are out of job for so long and no longer hireable. What if you have serious illness and need 0.5 mil to treat. Don't even think about it.

Most everybody, in the US, would be in trouble (working, not working, etc) if they had a serious illness that required 0.5 million (out of pocket) to treat outside of the top 5% by wealth. How common (percentage of US adults over 35) is it to have 0.5 million out of pocket expenses not covered by healthcare that are not terminal?

[Bigbonds]

Wow! I’m guessing you live in California or NY if you think it’s that expensive to raise kids. If you ever want a little perspective check out RootofGood.com guy was an engineer, early retired at 33 with only a little more than the OP, has 3 kids, travels and post his complete monthly budget and income statements online. His numbers are no where near what you are saying.

I’d personally prefer to ask advice from someone who has done ER successfully than someone who hasn’t.

That's also the guy who is ripping off his state's Medicaid program so he doesn't have to pay for his kids' healthcare. Not exactly a good role model, nor is his scheme sustainable.

Source? You literally just made that up. He uses Obamacare. It’s all posted on his blog. He couldn’t be anymore open about how he is doing what he does.

[JoMoney]

35 years is too young to retire. What if there is hyper-inflation? You are out of job for so long and no longer hireable. What if you have serious illness and need 0.5 mil to treat. Don't even think about it.

Most everybody, in the US, would be in trouble (working, not working, etc) if they had a serious illness that required 0.5 million (out of pocket) to treat outside of the top 5% by wealth. How common (percentage of US adults over 35) is it to have 0.5 million out of pocket expenses not covered by healthcare that are not terminal?

Not sure exactly how frequently major medical events happen to individuals, but I can point out that a common cause of financial failures is medical expenses.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
...Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship...

And if the cost of healthcare continues to rise at the pace it has in the past few decades, the squeeze will only get worse. I don't know what the answer to the rising cost problem is, but I do know if healthcare costs continue rising at rates faster than incomes, gdp/economy/etc.., something has to give. There's only a hundred cents in a dollar and if healthcare takes a few cents more than in the past that's a few cents less available to everything else.

[rgs92]

I personally wouldn't want to live according to life-changing irreversible decisions I made at 35.
Mistakes 'R' Us you know.

[smitcat]

As some others have mentioned, the key is whether you want to get married and/or have kids. If you stay single, you can get by with your frugal lifestyle.

If you get married, its not your call anymore. Your spending will be a function of what your wife wants to spend and the kids. Not to mention that half the marriages fail, so she will get half your assets (or more if you have kids) if that happens. Alimony can be an issue, some states (California) have alimony for life, so you will pay that bill until you die. Its seems terrible to think about a failed marriage before you even get married, but you have to for financial planning. If there was a 50% chance of a market crash where your would have to sell at a 50% loss at least, wouldn't you consider that in your planning?

Kids cost hundreds of thousands to raise each (several studies on this on the internet) until they are 18, not including the $100,000-$200,000 college cost each. I have three (and am still married after 25 years), so have experienced these expenses! That said, the kids have been the best part of my life by far.

At your age, you would need $4-$5 million plus at least to deal with marriage and multiple kids expenses if you are not working in my opinion.

Wow! I’m guessing you live in California or NY if you think it’s that expensive to raise kids. If you ever want a little perspective check out RootofGood.com guy was an engineer, early retired at 33 with only a little more than the OP, has 3 kids, travels and post his complete monthly budget and income statements online. His numbers are no where near what you are saying.

I’d personally prefer to ask advice from someone who has done ER successfully than someone who hasn’t.

While I am sure that kids can be raised for very little funds I would say that many/most folks would have the intent to spend what they believe is necessary as part of their goals. That is ...before they decide to have kids they have an expectation of what their costs will be based upon their experiences in life.
I would not use an internet blog affect my thoughts or plans on how to retire.
And I certainly would not let an internet blogger affect my plans on how to raise my kids.

[JoMoney]

I personally wouldn't want to live according to life-changing irreversible decisions I made at 35.
Mistakes 'R' Us you know.

Why do you assume it's a mistake? People make lots of decisions at 35 with various outcomes.. get tattoos, go to college, get a mortgage, get married, have children....

While it's evidently more difficult to get a job the older you get (and with big gaps in employment), it's not irreversible, and there's at least some possibility that leaving whatever his current employment is will lead him to something more fulfilling. It seems to me that if he enjoyed what he was doing he wouldn't have left it. At least now he's in a position where he's independent enough that it's not required he do something he doesn't find rewarding.

[randomguy]

Wow! I’m guessing you live in California or NY if you think it’s that expensive to raise kids. If you ever want a little perspective check out RootofGood.com guy was an engineer, early retired at 33 with only a little more than the OP, has 3 kids, travels and post his complete monthly budget and income statements online. His numbers are no where near what you are saying.

I’d personally prefer to ask advice from someone who has done ER successfully than someone who hasn’t.

That's also the guy who is ripping off his state's Medicaid program so he doesn't have to pay for his kids' healthcare. Not exactly a good role model, nor is his scheme sustainable.

Source? You literally just made that up. He uses Obamacare. It’s all posted on his blog. He couldn’t be anymore open about how he is doing what he does.

http://rootofgood.com/category/mailbag/ talks about how his kids will be on CHIP. Calling it fraud is pushing it.

I should point out he has NOT done ER successfully. The people that have done it successfully would have retired in say 1987 or so. Lasting 5 years is one thing. Lasting 30 is another. And you have to ask how you close your situation is in terms of having a working wife and a blog. And finally the problem that a lot of people have is worrying about being the exceptions. They worry about things like getting married and having an autistic kid.Things like that might only be a 5% type event but people here tend to worry a lot about those type of things. It is up to you how much to worry about it.

To a large extent it is because 30k spending level below a lot of people here. Someone coming on the board saying I have 4 million and want to live on 120k/year would get drastically different responses because that is more spending than most people do so they can imagine cutting down to 90k if things go bad and life being good.

Personally I think the OP is probably fine financially. The question is simply would they be more happy with more money. No way I can answer that for anyone else.

[Slacker]

35 years is too young to retire. What if there is hyper-inflation? You are out of job for so long and no longer hireable. What if you have serious illness and need 0.5 mil to treat. Don't even think about it.

Most everybody, in the US, would be in trouble (working, not working, etc) if they had a serious illness that required 0.5 million (out of pocket) to treat outside of the top 5% by wealth. How common (percentage of US adults over 35) is it to have 0.5 million out of pocket expenses not covered by healthcare that are not terminal?

Not sure exactly how frequently major medical events happen to individuals, but I can point out that a common cause of financial failures is medical expenses.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
...Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship...

And if the cost of healthcare continues to rise at the pace it has in the past few decades, the squeeze will only get worse. I don't know what the answer to the rising cost problem is, but I do know if healthcare costs continue rising at rates faster than incomes, gdp/economy/etc.., something has to give. There's only a hundred cents in a dollar and if healthcare takes a few cents more than in the past that's a few cents less available to everything else.

I just want to decompose some of the numbers here.

NerdWallet estimates that households containing 1.7 million people will file for bankruptcy protection this year.

So that is 15% lower than the number you cited. Furthermore, that is households with 1.7million people not 2 million people are filing for bankruptcy. However, we are discussing 0.647 million people/households actually affected by bankruptcy or 0.5% of US households. Granted, this is an annual number.

Nerd Wallet 2014 study on medical bankruptcy

NerdWallet Health estimates almost one in five—or roughly 51 million—American adults may be contacted by a debt collection agency about medical debt in 2014.
$21 billion in medical debt was collected from American consumers in 2012.

That looks like medical debt amounts to about $411 per person on average in aggregate.

New York Times article on Medical Debt

Twenty-nine percent of the people with medical bill problems said a family member had been forced to stop working or cut back on hours. (On the other side, about 41 percent of people said they’d taken on extra work to help pay bills.) “Is that a job problem or a medical bill problem?” said David Himmelstein, a professor of public health at the City University of New York’s Hunter College School of Public Health who has studied medical bankruptcies. “It’s both of those things.”

So it may be safe to say that the total chance of this happening to the OP is reduced by close to 29% since they won't have to worry about the issue of "stop working or cut back on hours".

Snopes had this to say about Bankruptcies

However, in that analysis NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were “estimates” or “extrapolations,” and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013...The potentially ameliorating effect of the ACA on bankruptcies was also cited by a July 2015 Wall Street Journal article which (in part) described research into medical bankruptcy done by Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin: Prof. Austin’s study found the percentage of medical bankruptcies to be far smaller. Overall, 18% to 25% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were prompted by medical debt.

So perhaps now, the number of personal bankruptcies tied to medical billing is as high as 260,000 people per year.

Now, when you reflect on the (small) size of debt collections claims for medical billing, the often stated low emergency funding of the average american and the nerdwallet study (updated in 2014). It does not appear that a $500,000 medical bill is very likely at all. It seems more likely that one goes to a hospital charging 50x as much as a similar hosptial for the same service and potentially pay up to $200,000, but far more likely is that the average american having to file for bankruptcy just does not sufficiently live below their means causing them to be ill prepared. I think the $500,000 scenario is less likely than the OP simply dying at a young age from any number of reasons so long as the OP stays insured.

[soupcxan]

Wow! I’m guessing you live in California or NY if you think it’s that expensive to raise kids. If you ever want a little perspective check out RootofGood.com guy was an engineer, early retired at 33 with only a little more than the OP, has 3 kids, travels and post his complete monthly budget and income statements online. His numbers are no where near what you are saying.

I’d personally prefer to ask advice from someone who has done ER successfully than someone who hasn’t.

That's also the guy who is ripping off his state's Medicaid program so he doesn't have to pay for his kids' healthcare. Not exactly a good role model, nor is his scheme sustainable.

Source? You literally just made that up. He uses Obamacare. It’s all posted on his blog. He couldn’t be anymore open about how he is doing what he does.

Medicaid is intended for children in families at or below the poverty line, not someone with almost $2m NW.

[DavidRoseMountain]

Just get a super great health insurance policy under the federal exchange and you don't have to worry about medical bankruptcy.

[EddyB]

I personally wouldn't want to live according to life-changing irreversible decisions I made at 35.
Mistakes 'R' Us you know.

But you will. We all do. They might not have radical consequences compared to other alternatives you may be considering, but maybe they will. Impossible to know.

[Wakefield1]

The O.P. might want to look at bobcat2's thread "Using Funded Ratio to drive your retirement investment plan-Part 1 of Funded Ratio Series"
that's under "Investing-Theory,News & General"

[smitcat]

Wow! I’m guessing you live in California or NY if you think it’s that expensive to raise kids. If you ever want a little perspective check out RootofGood.com guy was an engineer, early retired at 33 with only a little more than the OP, has 3 kids, travels and post his complete monthly budget and income statements online. His numbers are no where near what you are saying.

I’d personally prefer to ask advice from someone who has done ER successfully than someone who hasn’t.

That's also the guy who is ripping off his state's Medicaid program so he doesn't have to pay for his kids' healthcare. Not exactly a good role model, nor is his scheme sustainable.

Source? You literally just made that up. He uses Obamacare. It’s all posted on his blog. He couldn’t be anymore open about how he is doing what he does.

http://rootofgood.com/category/mailbag/ talks about how his kids will be on CHIP. Calling it fraud is pushing it.

I should point out he has NOT done ER successfully. The people that have done it successfully would have retired in say 1987 or so. Lasting 5 years is one thing. Lasting 30 is another. And you have to ask how you close your situation is in terms of having a working wife and a blog. And finally the problem that a lot of people have is worrying about being the exceptions. They worry about things like getting married and having an autistic kid.Things like that might only be a 5% type event but people here tend to worry a lot about those type of things. It is up to you how much to worry about it.

To a large extent it is because 30k spending level below a lot of people here. Someone coming on the board saying I have 4 million and want to live on 120k/year would get drastically different responses because that is more spending than most people do so they can imagine cutting down to 90k if things go bad and life being good.

Personally I think the OP is probably fine financially. The question is simply would they be more happy with more money. No way I can answer that for anyone else.

Randomguy - I agree with your assessment that he has not retired successfully with just a few years into his experiment. Along with that he has had the fortunate experience to be in a rising market all along.
Additionally we cannot say how well he works out the future of these 3 kids , he may do well but its way too early to read that either.
And about retirement - RoG is in business, he has a blog that pays and a consulting gig that he charges for ($125/hr). So like a bunch of other folks in blogging business they have an EIN number, buy assets under the business and write them off.
All of these business's do well until they don't do well but they all really try and tell their 'clients' exactly what they want to hear.
FWIW - if we define "retirement' as leaving a W2 job and then starting your own business my wife and I retired 15 years back and have had a zero WR so far since that date.