FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
scrabbler1
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:39 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by scrabbler1 »

lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:27 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:25 pm
Presintense wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pm
scrabbler1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:50 pm This was my point in some earlier posts. Even though I kinda hit a lottery by cashing out $300k from company stock, my short answer of "no kids, no debts" quickly bored most people I told about my early retirement.
Exactly. No one wants to hear about the routine choices and sacrifices you made that they could also make. Instead, they want to hear about some elaborate luck that they never had.
"no kids" is hardly a routine choice or sacrifice, though... That's a seriously life-altering one. I don't think you'll find many people who can relate to missing that part of life as a positive thing to enable retiring earlier.
100% agree. Having my son was easily the best thing I’ve ever done. It’s cliche but true - no amount of money could replace the joy I’ve gleaned from that experience
Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
It was the most important personal choice I made in my lifetime. I knew at age 20 I would be childfree. It wasn't until I was 35 when I realized I could parlay that choice into retiring early (at 45, it turned out).
northtexan
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:11 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by northtexan »

I am looking to retire around the age (35-40) of the people talked about in many of these stories. It does not seem like they have enough to truly live. If my calculations are true and accurate based on historical average. My wife and I would need about 1.8-2 million dollars with half in taxable and half in tax deferred , specifically for what OP was stating about 401k and age 59.5. With 900k-1million in a taxable account a 4% withdraw rate is right around the median income, we hope to not have lifestyle creep or a large mortgage by that time. But if it does happen we would probably just work a little longer to maintain our goal of early retirement. Then with 1million in tax deferred at age 35-40 it gives 20 years to grow and would have about 4million plus SS to live on.

Living on 40k for 20-25 years seems kind of low but we hope to maintain a low cost of living so we do not have to work and can spend time together. Kids would also throw a wrench into the plans that we have right now.

Most of the stories that I read do not seem like they will be able to stay retired or fully be financially independent/FIRE for the long term. Many seem like half baked stories or retirement plans. I am not even unsure if having around 2 million at age 35 would be FIRE, since there are so many different events that could change your life and force you to return to work at potentially a lower paying and less enjoyable position.
Last edited by northtexan on Mon May 20, 2019 2:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sam1
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:24 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Sam1 »

Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:03 pm
lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:27 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:25 pm
Presintense wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pm

Exactly. No one wants to hear about the routine choices and sacrifices you made that they could also make. Instead, they want to hear about some elaborate luck that they never had.
"no kids" is hardly a routine choice or sacrifice, though... That's a seriously life-altering one. I don't think you'll find many people who can relate to missing that part of life as a positive thing to enable retiring earlier.
100% agree. Having my son was easily the best thing I’ve ever done. It’s cliche but true - no amount of money could replace the joy I’ve gleaned from that experience
Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
Fair enough - it’s not for everybody. I can just understand a Luke warm reaction when explaining (in my quotes thread) part of FIRE was being child free. Most don’t take that route and wouldn’t be able to relate
It’s like someone telling you they go out to restaurants but only spend $3. You ask how and they tell you they only order a soda. Most people don’t want to give up eating when at a restaurant to save some money.
Sam1
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:24 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Sam1 »

I am strongly against FIRE. I think it’s foolish to give up a paying job at a young age to live off of existing assets. Not only are you withdrawing from your accounts but you’re not contributing. It’s a double whammy.

I think it is fine to take a lower paying job, one less stressful, part time, etc but one that doesn’t require one to withdraw from their accounts and where one can still contribute to a 401k and receive health benefits.

I simply think there are too many unknowns to 100 percent retire with a few million. Finding a job after having been out of the workforce for years or decades would be rough. Especially when you’re older. We could experience an unexpected financial crisis, world war, climate change disasters, etc. In the meantime, I wouldn’t give up the opportunity to sit in a climate controlled building or even your home and collect a paycheck.
visualguy
Posts: 2082
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:32 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by visualguy »

Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:13 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:03 pm
lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:27 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:25 pm

"no kids" is hardly a routine choice or sacrifice, though... That's a seriously life-altering one. I don't think you'll find many people who can relate to missing that part of life as a positive thing to enable retiring earlier.
100% agree. Having my son was easily the best thing I’ve ever done. It’s cliche but true - no amount of money could replace the joy I’ve gleaned from that experience
Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
Fair enough - it’s not for everybody. I can just understand a Luke warm reaction when explaining (in my quotes thread) part of FIRE was being child free. Most don’t take that route and wouldn’t be able to relate
It’s like someone telling you they go out to restaurants but only spend $3. You ask how and they tell you they only order a soda. Most people don’t want to give up eating when at a restaurant to save some money.
Good analogy :happy

Even leaving that aspect aside, there are negatives to not having kids which are related to finances. It relieves financial burden when young, but can complicate things tremendously in old age unless you have some other close family that you can trust and can rely on to help you.

Not having kids when you lose your health, require surgeries, lose cognitive abilities, etc. is horrible and very hard to navigate. I honestly don't know what people do in that situation, particularly if the spouse is also in bad shape or passed away. Throwing money at this (CCRC?) may help, but may negate any earlier financial benefit from not having kids and prevent FIRE. Even with throwing money at it, aging without at least some availability of critical help from close family is an extremely problematic situation.
User avatar
Orbuculum Nongata
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:58 pm
Location: 41.2565° N, 95.9345° W

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Orbuculum Nongata »

CyclingDuo wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:33 pm
Presintense wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pmExactly. No one wants to hear about the routine choices and sacrifices you made that they could also make. Instead, they want to hear about some elaborate luck that they never had.
Quite true! Nobody wants to hear about the longer term, slow accumulation that is required.

It's like making a good brisket and everyone you serve it to wants to know the secret. After you mention the prep work and days of marinating required, then the Low and slow for 8 hours or so in the smoker - it just bores the heck out of most who are used to fast food, eating out, and cooking things that take at most 30 minutes of their time.

It is interesting to read about the variety of FIRE types no matter how much buzz on blogs or in the media the terminology creates...

https://www.budgetsaresexy.com/4-types- ... etirement/

He came up with the following framework based on his research and polling of the space to help pinpoint the version that fits you best:

Lean FIRE: living off $0 – $40k yearly income (<$1,000,000 needed)
Regular FIRE: living off $40k – $100k yearly income ($1,000,000 – $2,500,000 needed)
Fat FIRE: living off $100k+ yearly income ($2,500,000+ needed)
Barista FIRE: the above range that fits you best, minus estimated insurance/perks?

The number “needed” to hit these goals is based on the Trinity Study that many of us follow, which basically says you can live off 4% of your investments or calculated another way: 25x your yearly expenses. So if you plan on only needing $40,000 a year to live off, then you’d need $1,000,000 banked which is 25 x $40,000 and drops you in Lean FIRE range.


Original article that Budget Sexy used is here:

https://minafi.com/fire-meaning
Brisket analogy :thumbsup :thumbsup
I think I can > I believe I can > I did
Thesaints
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Thesaints »

CyclingDuo wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:33 pm The number “needed” to hit these goals is based on the Trinity Study that many of us follow, which basically says you can live off 4% of your investments or calculated another way: 25x your yearly expenses. So if you plan on only needing $40,000 a year to live off, then you’d need $1,000,000 banked which is 25 x $40,000 and drops you in Lean FIRE range.[/i]
The Trinity Study only says that one has decent chances of doing do for 30 years. Those who "retire" at age 35 counting on that have another thing coming...
User avatar
Orbuculum Nongata
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:58 pm
Location: 41.2565° N, 95.9345° W

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Orbuculum Nongata »

visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:25 pm
Presintense wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pm
scrabbler1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:50 pm This was my point in some earlier posts. Even though I kinda hit a lottery by cashing out $300k from company stock, my short answer of "no kids, no debts" quickly bored most people I told about my early retirement.
Exactly. No one wants to hear about the routine choices and sacrifices you made that they could also make. Instead, they want to hear about some elaborate luck that they never had.
"no kids" is hardly a routine choice or sacrifice, though... That's a seriously life-altering one. I don't think you'll find many people who can relate to missing that part of life as a positive thing to enable retiring earlier.
I see your perspective. You interpreted it as “wanted to have kids but couldn’t”. I interpreted it as “decided not to have kids”. If it was the latter, who’s to say that decision wasn’t routine? But “no kids” wasn’t the entire statement. The second part was “no debt”. I hardly think anyone is forced into having no debt but rather it’s a decision made every day by habits and choices.
I think I can > I believe I can > I did
mptfan
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by mptfan »

visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:35 pm They retired from their original occupation, but they now have a different paying occupation (even if low-paying or part-time), so they are not "retired from work", just "retired from surgery" or "retired from chemical engineering". They still do some work for money. Like I said, for me retirement means not working a job or business for money. If I still hustle some job for money like mowing lawns or selling art, I'm not retired.
I agree with this.

Someone might rightly say "I'm a retired firefighter" even if they are working at a business or a side hustle or working part time at Home Depot, but they are not "retired."
Last edited by mptfan on Mon May 20, 2019 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thesaints
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Thesaints »

visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:35 pm They retired from their original occupation, but they now have a different paying occupation (even if low-paying or part-time), so they are not "retired from work", just "retired from surgery" or "retired from chemical engineering". They still do some work for money. Like I said, for me retirement means not working a job or business for money. If I still hustle some job for money like mowing lawns or selling art, I'm not retired.
Especially when you have to !!
randomguy
Posts: 9205
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by randomguy »

Thesaints wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:53 pm
CyclingDuo wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:33 pm The number “needed” to hit these goals is based on the Trinity Study that many of us follow, which basically says you can live off 4% of your investments or calculated another way: 25x your yearly expenses. So if you plan on only needing $40,000 a year to live off, then you’d need $1,000,000 banked which is 25 x $40,000 and drops you in Lean FIRE range.[/i]
The Trinity Study only says that one has decent chances of doing do for 30 years. Those who "retire" at age 35 counting on that have another thing coming...
They will have something like a 60% chance of being richer in year 30 than year 1. Make any money along the way and things are even better. And of course even minimal SS adds up if you are down in the lean fire category. Most fire people should be retiring with 5% SWR since they hate their jobs. Success rate is high enough and failure costs are minimal (i.e. they can work).

Debating costs and life style choices is useless. Some people want kids. Others don't. Some people want to live in a 500 sq ft house. Others want lavish 1100 sq ft ones. You need to pick what makes you happy. And obviously that changes over time. People raise family's of 4 on 25k/year. Others do it on 250k. You need to pick what makes you happier. I definitely didn't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on music lessons, sports, travel, and so on with my kids. But I feel pretty comfortable with that spending and it brought me far more joy than discomfort of working for 6 months.
renue74
Posts: 1873
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by renue74 »

Why hate on these people?

For goodness sakes, they saved $1M or whatever. I can call out 99% of my friends who haven't done that and they are 50 years old.

If I were single, I could live on $40K/year pretty easily. These FIRE folks, they don't covet the latest BMWs, post "should I buy this $1M house" on Bogleheads, or buy Starbucks coffee everyday.

I imagine a lot of FIRE folks had a combination of hard work and luck to get to where they are. You now...they were smart enough to accumulate. I would hazard a guess that when things got tough, they would work again.

I watch videos of expats who live in Thailand for $1000-$2000 per month. They look super happy. Also I watch videos of some lady bowfishing in her bikini on Youtube. She get's 1.5M views per video. She looks like she is having fun and she's making bank from her youtube fame. There are a lot more ways to make $ and spend it than sitting in a cube farm for 40 years.
randomguy
Posts: 9205
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by randomguy »

renue74 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:10 pm Why hate on these people?
Because most of them have zero social skills;) Seriously read MMM and think about what type of person walks around talking about punching people that make different lifestyle choices. And yes I know he largely does it as a technique for building page views and is probably a pleasant enough guy in real life.

FWIW I share the same level of hate for vegetarians, cross fitters, minimalists, people that don't own TVs or cars and who smoke pot religiously. Probably tiny house people also but I haven't met one of them. I am fine with all those activies. But it is beyond tiresome to hear about it constantly especially in conversations that aren't remotely related.:)
renue74
Posts: 1873
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by renue74 »

randomguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:20 pm
renue74 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:10 pm Why hate on these people?
Because most of them have zero social skills;) Seriously read MMM and think about what type of person walks around talking about punching people that make different lifestyle choices. And yes I know he largely does it as a technique for building page views and is probably a pleasant enough guy in real life.

FWIW I share the same level of hate for vegetarians, cross fitters, minimalists, people that don't own TVs or cars and who smoke pot religiously. Probably tiny house people also but I haven't met one of them. I am fine with all those activies. But it is beyond tiresome to hear about it constantly especially in conversations that aren't remotely related.:)
+1 on the tiny house people. :)

I just started reading the Financial Samurai blogger. How do you FIRE? Well...you get a big severance paycheck when you're fired and then you write an eBook about how to get a big severance paycheck. :)

I think the thing is...these folks put themselves out there in the public. My friends and I always talk about the kid who reviews toys on Youtube...you know the one, Ryan Toy Review....the kid is worth like $80M. You always hear, "heck, I could do that with my kid." The thing is...my friend didn't. Because he was doing something else...maybe being lazy, maybe working at his real job, but he didn't do it. He didn't put his kid out there in the public eye to be judged, ridiculed, and sometimes praised and liked.

Yeah...I get it. Those people who share their vegan beliefs with us. The ones who tell me I should try the juice cleanse, and the ones who only own 3 t-shirts and 2 pairs of skinny jeans.
EddyB
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 3:43 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by EddyB »

randomguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:20 pm
renue74 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:10 pm Why hate on these people?
Because most of them have zero social skills;) Seriously read MMM and think about what type of person walks around talking about punching people that make different lifestyle choices. And yes I know he largely does it as a technique for building page views and is probably a pleasant enough guy in real life.

FWIW I share the same level of hate for vegetarians, cross fitters, minimalists, people that don't own TVs or cars and who smoke pot religiously. Probably tiny house people also but I haven't met one of them. I am fine with all those activies. But it is beyond tiresome to hear about it constantly especially in conversations that aren't remotely related.:)
What about index-fund investors?
User avatar
AerialWombat
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 1:07 pm
Location: Cash Canyon / Cashville

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by AerialWombat »

randomguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:20 pm FWIW I share the same level of hate for vegetarians, cross fitters, minimalists, people that don't own TVs or cars and who smoke pot religiously. Probably tiny house people also but I haven't met one of them.
Well, I guess we’ll never hang out at a Boglehead conference. I can’t fathom owning a television, and I’ve been actively shopping for a tiny house. :)
User avatar
unclescrooge
Posts: 5331
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by unclescrooge »

scottinmet wrote: Sun May 19, 2019 6:46 pm
scrabbler1 wrote: Sun May 19, 2019 12:12 pm As someone who FIREd 11 years ago at age 45, I often get a chuckle from reading these news stories. Often, these FIREees simply downsized to work in other lower-paying but perhaps more enjoyable fields instead of their higher-stress, higher-paying jobs. Others have spouses who work while declaring themselves "FIREd" which to me is not really different from SAHMs or SAHDs. Or they packed it in and greatly downsized their lifestyles compared to what they had before, to the point of not being able to enjoy anything any more.

As for the money one needs, I had 2/3 of just under a $1M portfolio in a 401k and company stock, with 1/3 in taxable. I cashed out the company stock at low tax rates using NUA and reversed the ratio to 2/3 taxable, 1/3 rollover IRA. As long as my taxable gets me to age ~60 intact (only 4 years from now), my "reinforcements" will arrive in the form of the IRA, SS, and my frozen company pension.

I also worked part-time for the last 7 years of my career, gently easing me into a full retirement 11 years ago. I made sure my day-to-day lifestyle was unchanged, an unbreakable condition to FIRE. I doubt my story of someone single with no kids would be of any real interest to the media.
Not at all, retiring at 45 with under a million in investable assets, you should start a blog. You must have all kinds of useful information for the pre-FIRE crowd. :happy
I could start a blog about retiring at 45 with $1500/mo in passive income. I also live in a VHCOL area, but it still works because I married a physician that makes 2x what I do. :mrgreen:

To be fair, if I hadn't sold my investments to build a ridiculously expensive home, the passive income would be closer to $3k/mo. But I wouldn't have sold them if my spouse wasn't a physician. Her income, work ethic and job stability let me take on the extra risk that I normally wouldn't have agreed to.
User avatar
Meg77
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Meg77 »

renue74 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:10 pm Why hate on these people?

For goodness sakes, they saved $1M or whatever. I can call out 99% of my friends who haven't done that and they are 50 years old.

If I were single, I could live on $40K/year pretty easily. These FIRE folks, they don't covet the latest BMWs, post "should I buy this $1M house" on Bogleheads, or buy Starbucks coffee everyday.

I imagine a lot of FIRE folks had a combination of hard work and luck to get to where they are. You now...they were smart enough to accumulate. I would hazard a guess that when things got tough, they would work again.

I watch videos of expats who live in Thailand for $1000-$2000 per month. They look super happy. Also I watch videos of some lady bowfishing in her bikini on Youtube. She get's 1.5M views per video. She looks like she is having fun and she's making bank from her youtube fame. There are a lot more ways to make $ and spend it than sitting in a cube farm for 40 years.
+1 100% agree

Lots of people who have FIRE'd don't look like the ppl in those stories who are easier to find because they happen to blog or podcast about it. I know a 40-something woman who owns a yoga studio and lives half the year in Bali because she loves it and it's dirt cheap. She hosts yoga retreats there a few times a year and makes some extra $$, but she's hardly what I'd call "employed" (she doesn't teach yoga at her studio anymore and it's run by other employees). I know many other people in their 40s who have "retired" - i.e. quit the day jobs/careers they launched in their 20s and 30s. A few saved aggressively in high earning careers, but others made it happen due to a windfall from an inheritance or divorce settlement or sale of a business. Now they raise kids or own boutiques or invest in start ups or have side gigs like personal training or interior design or even MLM businesses. But they are no longer attorneys, financial planners, physicians, or military officers.

I'm 35 and technically have reached FIRE, but I'm still working. I'd like to be fatter FIRE, plus I like my job a lot and still have enough time to do the travel and hobbies I enjoy. If I got laid off or pregnant though, I could choose not to work - even if I were to become divorced. That's the beauty of FIRE. Having choices.

So I am still working and saving close to 50% of gross income with my husband. More money, more choices. :) I graduated from college with a net worth of about $200K (family gifts) and now it's nearly $3MM combined w DH. I started out earning $45K and saving 12% and now I earn 4x that (plus my husband's income) and we save 50%. We have regular corporate jobs, and we've slowly climbed our respective ladders. It's not magic - it's math. It's the same thing Bogleheads preach minus quite as much OMY angst and minus the more traditional outlook of what life should look like.
"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." - Benjamin Franklin
scrabbler1
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:39 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by scrabbler1 »

Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:13 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:03 pm
lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:27 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:25 pm

"no kids" is hardly a routine choice or sacrifice, though... That's a seriously life-altering one. I don't think you'll find many people who can relate to missing that part of life as a positive thing to enable retiring earlier.
100% agree. Having my son was easily the best thing I’ve ever done. It’s cliche but true - no amount of money could replace the joy I’ve gleaned from that experience
Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
Fair enough - it’s not for everybody. I can just understand a Luke warm reaction when explaining (in my quotes thread) part of FIRE was being child free. Most don’t take that route and wouldn’t be able to relate
It’s like someone telling you they go out to restaurants but only spend $3. You ask how and they tell you they only order a soda. Most people don’t want to give up eating when at a restaurant to save some money.
Terrible analogy. You are trying to portray childfree people as being somehow incomplete, the way a soda is an incomplete part of an overall meal. Childfree people are NOT incomplete. I would instead compare it to going to a car dealer and buying only a low-end, cheaper small car instead of some huge-ass, costly SUV. Both are vehicles to get you safely from Point A to Point B, but the small car doesn't require a huge outlay of money compared to the SUV.
Sam1
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:24 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Sam1 »

scrabbler1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 4:49 pm
Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:13 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:03 pm
lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:27 pm

100% agree. Having my son was easily the best thing I’ve ever done. It’s cliche but true - no amount of money could replace the joy I’ve gleaned from that experience
Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
Fair enough - it’s not for everybody. I can just understand a Luke warm reaction when explaining (in my quotes thread) part of FIRE was being child free. Most don’t take that route and wouldn’t be able to relate
It’s like someone telling you they go out to restaurants but only spend $3. You ask how and they tell you they only order a soda. Most people don’t want to give up eating when at a restaurant to save some money.
Terrible analogy. You are trying to portray childfree people as being somehow incomplete, the way a soda is an incomplete part of an overall meal. Childfree people are NOT incomplete. I would instead compare it to going to a car dealer and buying only a low-end, cheaper small car instead of some huge-ass, costly SUV. Both are vehicles to get you safely from Point A to Point B, but the small car doesn't require a huge outlay of money compared to the SUV.
I take it you don’t have kids. Here’s something most people with kids believe: Life would be incomplete without them. They won’t tell you this in real life.

Your analogy is flawed. No kids = no car. Not having kids truly puts you in a different category of life.
Old_Dollar
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 8:27 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Old_Dollar »

renue74 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 3:10 pm Why hate on these people?

For goodness sakes, they saved $1M or whatever. I can call out 99% of my friends who haven't done that and they are 50 years old.

If I were single, I could live on $40K/year pretty easily. These FIRE folks, they don't covet the latest BMWs, post "should I buy this $1M house" on Bogleheads, or buy Starbucks coffee everyday.

I imagine a lot of FIRE folks had a combination of hard work and luck to get to where they are. You now...they were smart enough to accumulate. I would hazard a guess that when things got tough, they would work again.

I watch videos of expats who live in Thailand for $1000-$2000 per month. They look super happy. Also I watch videos of some lady bowfishing in her bikini on Youtube. She get's 1.5M views per video. She looks like she is having fun and she's making bank from her youtube fame. There are a lot more ways to make $ and spend it than sitting in a cube farm for 40 years.
A lot of the hate comes from envy. Older individuals realizing that they missed an opportunity in their youth that they can never retrieve. The U.S. seems to have a major retirement crisis with chronic under-saving. Tossing hate on a subset of the population that has saved over 30% of their income constantly in their 20s and 30s coupled with the frugality screams envy and is counterproductive.

I just started a new job which gives me a higher salary, HSA eligible healthcare, a good 401k with Roth option. In my early/mid 30s, the Bogleheads on this forum would rightly criticize me into oblivion if I didn't contribute at least 15% to the 401k plus max out the HSA. If I do 20% or more in the 401k, all the better.
Last edited by Old_Dollar on Mon May 20, 2019 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am here solely to learn about investing.
Thesaints
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Thesaints »

Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 5:42 pm Your analogy is flawed. No kids = no car. Not having kids truly puts you in a different category of life.
Yes, no kids, no car, no bedroom separate from the entryway, no flying first class, no going to 3* restaurants, nor 5* hotels, no designer clothing, etc.
If one does not need money, it is perfectly fine to FIRE right out of high-school. How to do that it is not particularly interesting, though. The real skill is in retiring (for real, not with two side gigs) as young as possible, while being able to spend as much as possible, for an indefinitely long length of time.
randomguy
Posts: 9205
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by randomguy »

batpot wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 4:49 pm If you met an Atheist, Vegan, Cross fitter, FIRE'd, Tiny Houser, at a Boglehead Party, which would they tell you they are first?
Probably that they are gluten free😂

Seriously all the questioning of FIRE is the minimalist spending end. Nobody questions the 20 something with 10 million+ who says they are retiring. Some of the minimal end is objections to having other people pay for you(sticking your kids on Medicaid). Others is just wanting to spend more money. The FIRE people seem to think it is all BMWs that you will not miss. In my world it is violin lessons and soccer practice. Could live without them but life would be a lot less enjoyable
Thesaints
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Thesaints »

Old_Dollar wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 5:50 pm Tossing hate on a subset of the population that has saved over 30% of their income constantly in their 20s and 30s ...
Meaningless achievement. It is a lot better to save 5% on a 1M compensation than 50% on a 80k one. One will also have a more pleasurable time doing the former rather than the latter.
Old_Dollar
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 8:27 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Old_Dollar »

Thesaints wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 5:54 pm
Old_Dollar wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 5:50 pm Tossing hate on a subset of the population that has saved over 30% of their income constantly in their 20s and 30s ...
Meaningless achievement. It is a lot better to save 5% on a 1M compensation than 50% on a 80k one. One will also have a more pleasurable time doing the former rather than the latter.
Meaningless comparison. Median income in the U.S. is $60,000. Most of the U.S. are living on less than both numbers you provided. Real world implementations always win against hypotheticals.
I am here solely to learn about investing.
Cousin Eddie
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:27 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Cousin Eddie »

HomerJ wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:30 am
GCD wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:14 am
lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:58 am
GCD wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:51 am
RollTide31457 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:42 am Annual expenses above $40k are usually for lavish lifestyles.

Median household income was approx. $61,000 in 2017. You picked a pretty low number to set the lavish line at. What's your reasoning for picking that number?
40K take home in a LCOL area you can live really good.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I wouldn't consider $40K really good living anywhere in the US, let alone being the point at which "lavish" starts. I guess I'm out of touch or something.
40k with a paid off house can absolutely be good living in many places in the U.S.

But the paid-off house in LCOL area is a pretty important caveat. Without the paid-off house, $40k would indeed be a lot tighter.

And, of course, health care is always the big unknown (although currently with low income, one can get mostly free health care through the ACA)
In a LCOL area with your house paid off, I think the sweet spot would be $50-60k. With that you can afford decent health care, maintain your house, go on nice vacations every year, and not feel a bit constrained with your financial situation. More would be better, but that would be plenty.

For Retirement purposes that comes out to $1.5 million before deducting for pensions, inheritances, and SS.
User avatar
BogleFanGal
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by BogleFanGal »

Not having kids when you lose your health, require surgeries, lose cognitive abilities, etc. is horrible and very hard to navigate. I honestly don't know what people do in that situation, particularly if the spouse is also in bad shape or passed away.

This is a commonly-held belief and it's so misleading, as many hospital, AFLs and SNF workers will tell you. My husband has worked 20+ years in the healthcare industry on the front lines and has seen more adult children than he can count that do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for their physically or mentally ill parents, find them any facility that'll take them without caring about the quality, and rarely, if ever, visit to make sure their parent(s) are ok. Most live out of town or out of state, caught up in their own lives and are hands off.

When I visited my mom, I used to hear from staffers that many of the residents rarely get visits from their kids - usually just on a holiday - or maybe even just a phone call on Mother's Day or Dad's day, if that.

Many people believe that this only happens to lousy parents or with kids that weren't raised "right". Some of those people may be in for an awakening. I knew a few people personally who were good, decent, caring parents who devoted their lives to their kids. And in the end, they were essentially abandoned.

There are no guarantees - but a strong FI foundation in old age at least gives everyone some options - kids or not.

I admire and wish the FIRE group the best, but when they hit their '70s and '80s, I hope those prior 30-40 years of freedom won't cost them more than they realize.
"Life would be infinitely happier if we could only be born at the age of eighty and gradually approach eighteen." Mark Twain
Cousin Eddie
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:27 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Cousin Eddie »

scrabbler1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 4:49 pm
Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:13 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:03 pm
lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:27 pm

100% agree. Having my son was easily the best thing I’ve ever done. It’s cliche but true - no amount of money could replace the joy I’ve gleaned from that experience
Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
Fair enough - it’s not for everybody. I can just understand a Luke warm reaction when explaining (in my quotes thread) part of FIRE was being child free. Most don’t take that route and wouldn’t be able to relate
It’s like someone telling you they go out to restaurants but only spend $3. You ask how and they tell you they only order a soda. Most people don’t want to give up eating when at a restaurant to save some money.
Terrible analogy. You are trying to portray childfree people as being somehow incomplete, the way a soda is an incomplete part of an overall meal. Childfree people are NOT incomplete. I would instead compare it to going to a car dealer and buying only a low-end, cheaper small car instead of some huge-ass, costly SUV. Both are vehicles to get you safely from Point A to Point B, but the small car doesn't require a huge outlay of money compared to the SUV.
When I was talking (in jest) about starting a blog, I was more interested in how you maintained your portfolio after you retired. I know the stock market has been good in the last 10 years, but retiring at such an early age with that amount must have required some planning up front and then paying careful attention to your finances over the years. You are trying to glide to age 60 and to SS age when additional reinforcements arrive, that was in my estimation a leap of faith, especially starting soon after the 08 crash. That's what I find interesting because not many people did that.
Dink2018
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:55 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Dink2018 »

BogleFanGal wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 6:47 pm Not having kids when you lose your health, require surgeries, lose cognitive abilities, etc. is horrible and very hard to navigate. I honestly don't know what people do in that situation, particularly if the spouse is also in bad shape or passed away.

This is a commonly-held belief and it's so misleading, as many hospital, AFLs and SNF workers will tell you. My husband has worked 20+ years in the healthcare industry on the front lines and has seen more adult children than he can count that do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for their physically or mentally ill parents, find them any facility that'll take them without caring about the quality, and rarely, if ever, visit to make sure their parent(s) are ok. Most live out of town or out of state, caught up in their own lives and are hands off.

When I visited my mom, I used to hear from staffers that many of the residents rarely get visits from their kids - usually just on a holiday - or maybe even just a phone call on Mother's Day or Dad's day, if that.

Many people believe that this only happens to lousy parents or with kids that weren't raised "right". Some of those people may be in for an awakening. I knew a few people personally who were good, decent, caring parents who devoted their lives to their kids. And in the end, they were essentially abandoned.

There are no guarantees - but a strong FI foundation in old age at least gives everyone some options - kids or not.

I admire and wish the FIRE group the best, but when they hit their '70s and '80s, I hope those prior 30-40 years of freedom won't cost them more than they realize.
Totally agree. The idea that kids will eventually take care of you is nice but the reality I see MUCH more consistently is that the elderly are abandoned and too expensive to support. Another reason I don't plan on having kids is the liability of the kids kids. Plenty of my clients have had to take care of their grandkids NOT just their kids. Since I've never wanted kids in the first place it doesn't seem like a smart thing for me to do.

I hold nothing against people making the decision to have kids but when 20% of them aren't even from the dad they think they are from its obvious far too many people are having kids because of mechanical pregnancy not a long term plan.
User avatar
unclescrooge
Posts: 5331
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by unclescrooge »

Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 5:42 pm
scrabbler1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 4:49 pm
Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:13 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:03 pm
lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm

Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
Fair enough - it’s not for everybody. I can just understand a Luke warm reaction when explaining (in my quotes thread) part of FIRE was being child free. Most don’t take that route and wouldn’t be able to relate
It’s like someone telling you they go out to restaurants but only spend $3. You ask how and they tell you they only order a soda. Most people don’t want to give up eating when at a restaurant to save some money.
Terrible analogy. You are trying to portray childfree people as being somehow incomplete, the way a soda is an incomplete part of an overall meal. Childfree people are NOT incomplete. I would instead compare it to going to a car dealer and buying only a low-end, cheaper small car instead of some huge-ass, costly SUV. Both are vehicles to get you safely from Point A to Point B, but the small car doesn't require a huge outlay of money compared to the SUV.
I take it you don’t have kids. Here’s something most people with kids believe: Life would be incomplete without them. They won’t tell you this in real life.

Your analogy is flawed. No kids = no car. Not having kids truly puts you in a different category of life.
That's 100% right. Instead I tell everyone that kids ruin everything :mrgreen:
visualguy
Posts: 2082
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:32 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by visualguy »

BogleFanGal wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 6:47 pm Not having kids when you lose your health, require surgeries, lose cognitive abilities, etc. is horrible and very hard to navigate. I honestly don't know what people do in that situation, particularly if the spouse is also in bad shape or passed away.

This is a commonly-held belief and it's so misleading, as many hospital, AFLs and SNF workers will tell you. My husband has worked 20+ years in the healthcare industry on the front lines and has seen more adult children than he can count that do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for their physically or mentally ill parents, find them any facility that'll take them without caring about the quality, and rarely, if ever, visit to make sure their parent(s) are ok. Most live out of town or out of state, caught up in their own lives and are hands off.

When I visited my mom, I used to hear from staffers that many of the residents rarely get visits from their kids - usually just on a holiday - or maybe even just a phone call on Mother's Day or Dad's day, if that.

Many people believe that this only happens to lousy parents or with kids that weren't raised "right". Some of those people may be in for an awakening. I knew a few people personally who were good, decent, caring parents who devoted their lives to their kids. And in the end, they were essentially abandoned.

There are no guarantees - but a strong FI foundation in old age at least gives everyone some options - kids or not.

I admire and wish the FIRE group the best, but when they hit their '70s and '80s, I hope those prior 30-40 years of freedom won't cost them more than they realize.
Sure, kids may abandon you completely, but that is not actually all that likely. Even looking at it from the perspective of their selfish interest and ignoring love, it's rarely in their best interest to do something like that, particularly if you have assets that they want to inherit some day. They may not take care of you or let you live with them, but they'll provide help at critical times.

Without kids, such abandonment isn't a worst-case possibility, it's a certainty. Again, I have no idea how people handle that. It's an absolutely horrible situation to be in, and not sure how it's handled even by people with a lot of money, not to mention people who FIREd without much.
cacophony
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:12 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by cacophony »

visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:37 pm Sure, kids may abandon you completely, but that is not actually all that likely. Even looking at it from the perspective of their selfish interest and ignoring love, it's rarely in their best interest to do something like that, particularly if you have assets that they want to inherit some day. They may not take care of you or let you live with them, but they'll provide help at critical times.

Without kids, such abandonment isn't a worst-case possibility, it's a certainty. Again, I have no idea how people handle that. It's an absolutely horrible situation to be in, and not sure how it's handled even by people with a lot of money, not to mention people who FIREd without much.
It's a certainty that people without kids have no significant other, close relatives or good friends? :oops:
3504PIR
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:46 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by 3504PIR »

I retire in 2 weeks, not at 35, but at 56. Retirement savings can go beyond IRAs and 401k’s, and if you do retire early, even a few years early, it is important to save beyond “retirement” accounts.
visualguy
Posts: 2082
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:32 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by visualguy »

cacophony wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:44 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:37 pm Sure, kids may abandon you completely, but that is not actually all that likely. Even looking at it from the perspective of their selfish interest and ignoring love, it's rarely in their best interest to do something like that, particularly if you have assets that they want to inherit some day. They may not take care of you or let you live with them, but they'll provide help at critical times.

Without kids, such abandonment isn't a worst-case possibility, it's a certainty. Again, I have no idea how people handle that. It's an absolutely horrible situation to be in, and not sure how it's handled even by people with a lot of money, not to mention people who FIREd without much.
It's a certainty that people without kids have no significant other, close relatives or good friends? :oops:
Ok, it's close to a certainty for one spouse and/or the other... Maybe you get lucky and have a spouse who is still healthy-enough to help you (but who will help the spouse later?) Strong-enough ties with some other still healthy, capable, and altruistic relatives or friends seem quite unlikely that late in life and in failing health. Yeah, not impossible, but a LOT less likely than with kids.

I'm currently seeing all that very vividly when visiting my mother at her nursing home and observing what happens with the other patients there as well. The last few years observing the decline of my parents and my wife's parents have been a real education for me about old age and the importance of kids in old age. It was the same with my grandmother, but I was too young, oblivious, and busy with my life for things to sink in back then.
cacophony
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:12 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by cacophony »

visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:47 pm Ok, it's close to a certainty for one spouse and/or the other... Maybe you get lucky and have a spouse who is still healthy-enough to help you (but who will help the spouse later?) Strong-enough ties with some other still healthy, capable, and altruistic relatives or friends seem quite unlikely that late in life and in failing health. Yeah, not impossible, but a LOT less likely than with kids.
...
I disagree. You might not be the type to be very close with other relatives and friends, but plenty of people are, in those those situations the relatives and/or friends usually step up to do what's needed. That's at least what I've personally observed.
HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 4801
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE »

cacophony wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:58 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:47 pm Ok, it's close to a certainty for one spouse and/or the other... Maybe you get lucky and have a spouse who is still healthy-enough to help you (but who will help the spouse later?) Strong-enough ties with some other still healthy, capable, and altruistic relatives or friends seem quite unlikely that late in life and in failing health. Yeah, not impossible, but a LOT less likely than with kids.
...
I disagree. You might not be the type to be very close with other relatives and friends, but plenty of people are, in those those situations the relatives and/or friends usually step up to do what's needed. That's at least what I've personally observed.
Whom will those friends / relatives prioritize when push comes to shove? You or their own families?
Starfish
Posts: 1986
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Starfish »

lostdog wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 pm
Meaty wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:27 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:25 pm
Presintense wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pm
scrabbler1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 12:50 pm This was my point in some earlier posts. Even though I kinda hit a lottery by cashing out $300k from company stock, my short answer of "no kids, no debts" quickly bored most people I told about my early retirement.
Exactly. No one wants to hear about the routine choices and sacrifices you made that they could also make. Instead, they want to hear about some elaborate luck that they never had.
"no kids" is hardly a routine choice or sacrifice, though... That's a seriously life-altering one. I don't think you'll find many people who can relate to missing that part of life as a positive thing to enable retiring earlier.
100% agree. Having my son was easily the best thing I’ve ever done. It’s cliche but true - no amount of money could replace the joy I’ve gleaned from that experience
Child free was the best decision we've ever made and we have zero regret. We do enjoy our nieces and nephews but at the end of the day the parents can have them back.
How do you know?
There are people who know from the beginning they want kids.
But some people there is absolutely no way to know if they want kids (or not) until they have kids. There is absolutely no way to tell ahead. Liking kids generally has absolutely nothing to do with liking your kids in particular.
Ask me how I know...
cacophony
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:12 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by cacophony »

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:01 am
cacophony wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:58 pm
visualguy wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:47 pm Ok, it's close to a certainty for one spouse and/or the other... Maybe you get lucky and have a spouse who is still healthy-enough to help you (but who will help the spouse later?) Strong-enough ties with some other still healthy, capable, and altruistic relatives or friends seem quite unlikely that late in life and in failing health. Yeah, not impossible, but a LOT less likely than with kids.
...
I disagree. You might not be the type to be very close with other relatives and friends, but plenty of people are, in those those situations the relatives and/or friends usually step up to do what's needed. That's at least what I've personally observed.
Whom will those friends / relatives prioritize when push comes to shove? You or their own families?
So we started with the certainty that somebody without kids would die without unpaid assistance. And now we've moved on to the less than likely possibility that all the people who could have helped with some immediate issue are busy with more important people?

My point was never that people without kids are guaranteed to get good support. Just as people with kids are not guaranteed to get good support. Every situation is different.

Regardless, relatives are family last I checked. Siblings especially can be very close.
Starfish
Posts: 1986
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Starfish »

BogleFanGal wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 6:47 pm There are no guarantees - but a strong FI foundation in old age at least gives everyone some options - kids or not.

I admire and wish the FIRE group the best, but when they hit their '70s and '80s, I hope those prior 30-40 years of freedom won't cost them more than they realize.
I don't understand the rationale here.
Who would exchange/sacrifice tens of years of their best life for the last years which are bad anyway - even if rich - because of age and health?
visualguy
Posts: 2082
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:32 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by visualguy »

cacophony wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:14 am Regardless, relatives are family last I checked. Siblings especially can be very close.
Yes, but they also tend to be close in age. My mom had one brother and he already passed away, so he wouldn't have been able to help. My dad has no siblings. My wife has a sister, but she is older, not as healthy, and unlikely to outlive my wife. I have siblings, but they live abroad. Generally, having a good substitute for the help of kids in old age is rare.

I used to dismiss all this too until I experienced it with my parents and my wife's parents, and couldn't remotely fathom how what they went through would have worked without the kids.
visualguy
Posts: 2082
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:32 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by visualguy »

Starfish wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:30 am
BogleFanGal wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 6:47 pm There are no guarantees - but a strong FI foundation in old age at least gives everyone some options - kids or not.

I admire and wish the FIRE group the best, but when they hit their '70s and '80s, I hope those prior 30-40 years of freedom won't cost them more than they realize.
I don't understand the rationale here.
Who would exchange/sacrifice tens of years of their best life for the last years which are bad anyway - even if rich - because of age and health?
What choice do you have unless you are willing and able to fall as a burden on others during old age? You need the resources to take care of yourself and/or your spouse in old age. Yes, it can take years of additional work, but how is the alternative acceptable? A lack of money on top of old age and failing health can be a nightmare scenario, so, yes, I would work additional good years to avoid that, and at least be able to throw money at the problems. That's life; what can you do?
Gibby45
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:55 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Gibby45 »

The decision to have children is a personal decision that is (or should be) completely separate from FIRE or long-term care planning. I have three siblings and I am the only one who went home to take care of my mom following her surgery. Being able to do that as my parents get older is one of main reasons the FIRE movement appealed to me. I have the best parents I could have hoped for and I want to spend as much time with them as possible as they age. I do not have children and have never seriously contemplated having children. I believe having children is a unique experience that teaches you things about yourself that you otherwise wouldn't learn. I don't think that is the same thing as not knowing whether or not you want kids. I love children to pieces, but I know myself well enough to know that I don't want any of my own.

My FIRE decision is based more on time than money. I've lost really close friends and family members to meningitis, cancer, car accidents, etc. If I have to go back to work one day, so be it. I wouldn't regret having to go back to work because I retired to spend more time with family and friends. I would always regret not being there for my family and friends if/when they need me because I had to work. I started my working career just before the Great Recession. Working with the constant stress of looming layoffs is not a feeling I would wish on anyone. I love my job. I'm lucky to have been gainfully employed since I started working, but I think it would be foolish of me to take employment for granted.

As for the mechanics of FIRE, my plan is relatively simple. My portfolio is evenly split between residential real estate and a Boglehead-inspired 3 fund portfolio. After FIREing I plan to live primarily off of rental income which should be somewhat shielded from taxation thanks to depreciation. I will do Roth conversions through the 12% tax bracket into the 22% bracket. I will not take SS until 70. I will purchase a HDHP through the exchanges as long as they are around. I do not plan on qualifying for any subsidies. If health care becomes too expensive (or non-existent) on the exchanges, I will purchase a global health care plan for use outside of the U.S. I have HELOCs in place in the event I need a large influx of cash. The HELOCs serve as back up emergency funds that allow me to be more aggressive with my asset allocation.

FIRE does not have to be extreme. You should absolutely spend money on things that meaningfully impact your quality of life. I don't mind living in my small place, driving my old car or eating food I prepare myself. Living in a larger place, driving a newer car and eating at fancy restaurants doesn't move the needle for me. I value spending time with friends and family, traveling and listening to live music. I use credit card rewards to travel for free and I am willing to pay to hear great live music. If you are in a position to make saving your biggest expense, the FIRE math will take care of itself. Forget about the articles and the blogs. Find out what is most important to you and use your available resources to make those things priorities. Don't compare yourself to others and try not to mindlessly spend money. If you decide to spend money, spend it on something that is important to you. Make the system automatic and time will handle the rest.
cacophony
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:12 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by cacophony »

visualguy wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:47 am Yes, but they also tend to be close in age. My mom had one brother and he already passed away, so he wouldn't have been able to help. My dad has no siblings. My wife has a sister, but she is older, not as healthy, and unlikely to outlive my wife. I have siblings, but they live abroad. Generally, having a good substitute for the help of kids in old age is rare.

I used to dismiss all this too until I experienced it with my parents and my wife's parents, and couldn't remotely fathom how what they went through would have worked without the kids.
I have various stories I could tell that paint a very different picture, but at the end of the day they're all just anecdotal experiences.

Now back to the main topic of this thread ... :sharebeer
Thesaints
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Thesaints »

Starfish wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:30 am I don't understand the rationale here.
Who would exchange/sacrifice tens of years of their best life for the last years which are bad anyway - even if rich - because of age and health?
The exchange is actually 10 years at a younger age living rather spartanly plus 10 years at an older age living even more spartanly versus 10 years at a younger age enjoying life a little more plus 10 more years of work at an older age, yet with more financial comforts.

Remember that the FIRE posterchildren don’t winter in Aspen and don’t stay at the Four Seasons.
chipperd
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:58 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by chipperd »

Sam1 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:33 pm I am strongly against FIRE. I think it’s foolish to give up a paying job at a young age to live off of existing assets. Not only are you withdrawing from your accounts but you’re not contributing. It’s a double whammy.

I think it is fine to take a lower paying job, one less stressful, part time, etc but one that doesn’t require one to withdraw from their accounts and where one can still contribute to a 401k and receive health benefits.

I simply think there are too many unknowns to 100 percent retire with a few million. Finding a job after having been out of the workforce for years or decades would be rough. Especially when you’re older. We could experience an unexpected financial crisis, world war, climate change disasters, etc. In the meantime, I wouldn’t give up the opportunity to sit in a climate controlled building or even your home and collect a paycheck.
Each to his/her own. If you want to spend your time "...to sit in a climate controlled building...collect a paycheck" who is anyone to question that except you? It's your life and it has an expiration date. If that gives you what you are looking for in life, good on ya. The same would be said for someone who chooses to live his/her life doing something else that meets their life goals (within moral and legal bounds). Not sure why one would get on a financial board and criticize another's life choices. . That's the issue that I have with this thread; it's become a place for some to pass judgement with little information. Take it easy folks.
sailaway
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by sailaway »

Thesaints wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 2:01 am
Starfish wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:30 am I don't understand the rationale here.
Who would exchange/sacrifice tens of years of their best life for the last years which are bad anyway - even if rich - because of age and health?
The exchange is actually 10 years at a younger age living rather spartanly plus 10 years at an older age living even more spartanly versus 10 years at a younger age enjoying life a little more plus 10 more years of work at an older age, yet with more financial comforts.

Remember that the FIRE posterchildren don’t winter in Aspen and don’t stay at the Four Seasons.
Remember, not everyone desires to winter in Aspen and stay at the Four Seasons. Moreover, there is an enormous gap between the Four Seasons and spartan where most people can be quite comfortable and happy.
Valuethinker
Posts: 41140
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Valuethinker »

Dink2018 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:02 pm

I hold nothing against people making the decision to have kids but when 20% of them aren't even from the dad they think they are from its obvious far too many people are having kids because of mechanical pregnancy not a long term plan.
You are the victim of a widely held urban myth - I fell for it.

http://theconversation.com/what-are-the ... ther-24802

Actual numbers
These results marry comfortably with DNA estimates of misattributed paternity from samples that cross a broad range of societies which suggest the rate is between 1% and 3%, and with Prof Gilding’s estimate of between 0.7% and 2%.

The number of children whose biological father isn’t their social dad is probably far smaller than you’ve been led to believe, although the 30% figure seems to be a zombie-statistic that refuses to die.
In almost all the adoptive parent cases of which I am aware, the adopted child identifies their father as the person who played that role in their early years, regardless of paternity.

It does not really matter if you are not your father's child. That's not how human societies work.

Also consider the more older male siblings you have, the greater your likelihood of being homosexual (for a man). How does that work? It's clear that evolution seeks to increase the general protection of the gene pool of related people (your nieces and nephews) rather than your specific set of genes (whose inheritance can vary widely in any case even if you are the genetic father).
Cousin Eddie
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:27 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by Cousin Eddie »

Valuethinker wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 5:33 am
Dink2018 wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 10:02 pm

I hold nothing against people making the decision to have kids but when 20% of them aren't even from the dad they think they are from its obvious far too many people are having kids because of mechanical pregnancy not a long term plan.
You are the victim of a widely held urban myth - I fell for it.

http://theconversation.com/what-are-the ... ther-24802

Actual numbers
These results marry comfortably with DNA estimates of misattributed paternity from samples that cross a broad range of societies which suggest the rate is between 1% and 3%, and with Prof Gilding’s estimate of between 0.7% and 2%.

The number of children whose biological father isn’t their social dad is probably far smaller than you’ve been led to believe, although the 30% figure seems to be a zombie-statistic that refuses to die.
In almost all the adoptive parent cases of which I am aware, the adopted child identifies their father as the person who played that role in their early years, regardless of paternity.

It does not really matter if you are not your father's child. That's not how human societies work.

Also consider the more older male siblings you have, the greater your likelihood of being homosexual (for a man). How does that work? It's clear that evolution seeks to increase the general protection of the gene pool of related people (your nieces and nephews) rather than your specific set of genes (whose inheritance can vary widely in any case even if you are the genetic father).
Off topic (of which this whole thread has become), but I wonder how many court ordered sealed records of adoptions are being overcome by people registering on sites like 23 and me. Adoptees can now easily find who their ancestors are and probably from that quickly locate their parents.

In any event, I think this whole debate about whether someone has or should have children is completely off topic and has completely derailed this thread.
skime
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:24 pm

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by skime »

People's insecurities definitely come out when it comes to people retiring early. If someone saves enough to retire early at any age and live anywhere they want and do anything they want, have kids or not have kids why would you care? There's certainly a lot of judgement being thrown around.

OT comment removed by Moderator Misenplace.

If their plan blows up, it still doesn't impact you. Although for some strange reason, it might make you feel better about your own situation.
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3664
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: FIRE - What am I missing in the News Stories

Post by CyclingDuo »

Thesaints wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:53 pm
CyclingDuo wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:33 pm The number “needed” to hit these goals is based on the Trinity Study that many of us follow, which basically says you can live off 4% of your investments or calculated another way: 25x your yearly expenses. So if you plan on only needing $40,000 a year to live off, then you’d need $1,000,000 banked which is 25 x $40,000 and drops you in Lean FIRE range.[/i]
The Trinity Study only says that one has decent chances of doing do for 30 years. Those who "retire" at age 35 counting on that have another thing coming...
I was surprised that neither the blog I quoted - Budgets Are Sexy - as well as the original article from https://minafi.com/fire-meaning mentioned raising the multiple of the trinity study for early ages with regard to the -RE portion of FIRE. Nor did they mention lowering the SWR rate % to account for retiring at a younger age. Maybe they both have discussed that in other articles on their blogs, but I didn't spend any time searching to see if they had done that.

There are other retire early blogs, such as this one, that do address both issues...

https://retireby40.org/25x-expenses-isn ... etirement/

The reader's vote from that blog...

Image

Thankfully, there has been plenty of discussion here at BH over the years with regard to 30x, and 32x and 35x, etc... depending on age, lower withdrawal rates, variable withdrawal rates, other expected streams of income, COLA vs. non-COLA and on and on. I would join you in sharing the concerns of blindly following the metrics of 4% for a SWR and a multiple of 25x expenses when making a choice to FIRE at young ages such as 35 or 40.

CyclingDuo
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
Locked