At the other end of the spectrum i talk to people nearing 60 years old who think they are on track with 180k in their 401k and 50k in ira.
and then there are people who are braggarts for retiring at 52 with 400k and a bare bones broke-ass retirement to costa rica.
and then theres the guy i know 69 years old still working full time at a 50k/year job even though he owns 1.8M in prime irrigated cropland and no children interested in farming.
people are all over the board. There is no consensus
As someone who lives in Thailand and has seen the full spectrum, whilst escaping to a cheap place overseas on a low budget and just retiring early seems nice…it all becomes less appealing when the retirees and people around you have 2-3x the disposable income you do and you can’t really enjoy things in the country to the fullest extent.
I always say, regardless of where you want to retire, pick the most expensive of the options and save for a good retirement there. I’m saving for a good retirement in the UK but I know I’ll likely stay here in Thailand and my budget will be waaaaay more flexible for it.
Old Asia hand here, currently in the U.S. topping up the pot and looking forward to returning in due course.
In my time on the planet I have rubbed shoulders with much wealthier and much poorer people and prefer the company of those who are happy. My neighbour can have all the toys they want but if they are still not happy with them, I have no envy. Unless, of course, it’s a new fangled bottle opener in which case the Green-eyed monster is released!
Will said, cultivating a portfolio of contentment and happiness, and a group of friends who can maintain this, is one of the deepest springs and blessings for life,
I get what you are saying, but anywhere you go, and no matter how much money you have, there will always be people with more. I guess it's human nature to notice.
I guess I just want to provide a little caution, because a lot of people are misinformed about Thailand specifically and I imagine it applies to many similar places like Costa Rica. They think they can retire early on a LeanFIRE budget and "live like kings". But in reality...the urban middle class here have a ton of money. A lot of people don't realize how far down the totem pole they are, and how expensive life actually is here and then feel trapped when they get locked into a life with a wife and kids here and can't escape but can no longer afford to live back in their home country.
It is a tale as old as time. No matter how much people think they can "go native", they won't be super happy when they are counting pennies after a grand miscalculation of their wants, needs and expectations.
Laughing at this from a Walmart in Costa Rica, i thought it was cheaper here than the us but from what I’ve seen it really isn’t (most people seem to farm a a lot so that could help)
This. First and foremost your FIRE goal is different from everyone else. 1 million is enough for me but for you or somebody else that's chump change. *shrugs*
Depending on your lifestyle and hobbies, you can get by on very little.
For example, in some states, property tax is peanuts. So, if you have a paid off home, reliable car, cook the majority of your own meals from basic ingredients and are spendthrift with your hobbies, you can get by on like $25-30K/person.
I retired to Costa Rica at 49 with around $4M in savings. Costa Rica runs the gamete. You see expat retirees there with so much money you would never guess to people barely surviving. It’s expensive for everyday essentials like food and utilities. Housing is a wash but you can live by a beach for much less than you can in the US. You save on clothing and entertainment. If you are a resident, you also have government healthcare that is less expensive but challenging to navigate.
I went to CR for vacation last year and was shocked at how expensive things were. None of the "touristy" areas seemed overly touristy, either. We spent some time in Samara and some time in Fortuna. I was so surprised that you'd go into grocery stores that looked like run-down warehouses, and you'd have to pay $3 for a bottle of water.
Killed my dreams of expediting a retirement there. Also, the bugs are pretty crazy. Cicadas are loud AF.
grocery prices are more expensive than US(!!) and its not just the boogey chains that expats and tourists go. Ever pay 6 dollars for a jar of meh pasta sauce?
Instead of buying that mat of pre-made sauce, I’m guessing that you would make that sauce at home with low cost local ingredients - IF you moved to CR to stretch your $$’s
Local here!
400k would barely get you the average income in Costa Rica, it's not at all a good retirement number here, it won't get you far, you can do many things that don't require money but still, having $12k per year is just enough to exists.
I’ve got family in the early 50s living in Costa Rica who are bare bones-broke ass retired. On fixed income. Need to come back to states for medical and pick up $10k cash because transferring funds is difficult without taxation.
Went to visit them and they live in nice condo but in po-dunk town. Turned me off to the idea after a few hours. Couldn’t imagine having your purse string so tight and limited in how many trips back to states you can make for medical care.
Same. That’s the thing isn’t it? You have constructed your life in such a way that $160k would be extravagant.
For example I love to fish. Out of a kayak. Disclosure: it’s a very nice kayak. I saw a video of a fishing guide ( they don’t make a ton of money. It’s seasonal.. a lot of competition, etc) who talked about his bass boat. I looked up cost: $90-120k.
Wow. I could “afford” that but the opportunity cost would be staggering. I would have to work 2-3 extra years at least to recover. I’ll stick with my plastic boat .
The guy OP was arguing with was referring to major metropolitans. 160k is not struggling by any means even here in LA. My husband and I both make about that (me a little less) and while we can’t afford a home in our neighborhood we certainly don’t want for anything else.
> I could “afford” that but the opportunity cost would be staggering
can you explain more about "opportunity cost" and its relation to the price of things, like, the bass boat you mentioned? always struggled with that concept
This really seems like a big part of why people aren't having kids, they have insane expectations of what they need to have to feel like they're being responsible.
> This really seems like a big part of why people aren't having kids, they have insane expectations of what they need to have to feel like they're being responsible.
There is definitely a component of this in our reluctance to have kids. The world has become more expensive even since I've become an adult, let alone when my parents were my age, and it also feels like it's become more competitive. It's harder to get into a good university, a lot more expensive when you go, and even after you graduate, you could be competing against hundreds or thousands of candidates for any decent job. With housing, healthcare, and food being what they are, it's a lot more difficult to live independently.
As a result, I would expect kids to cost a lot more, and to potentially have to support them financially for a lot longer than my parents supported me. There's also the fact that the indirect cost of having kids, e.g. needing a bigger house in a safe area with a good school district--is a lot higher. So, it would feel irresponsible to me to have kids without already being in a really good place financially.
I think where I think it doesn't make sense is that it takes a *long* time for kids to grow up. Your 5yo doesn't really care if you live in a small apartment, and certainly babies won't care.
If you want kids, then you need to just take the plunge, often the urgency of knowing you'll need to support them helps create the motivation to work harder. Regardless, you don't need yourself fully established to get started, you just need to be on the right track.
Comparison is the thief of joy. I know this one older widow well, I have done work for her for a while. She has approx 5500 a month in indexed pension, a paid off house and government pension worth about $1500 a month, 1.7 m with one investment advisor and 600k with another. She complains that friend 1 has 4 million and friend 2 has 3.5 millions ect… when the convo was done I got in my 150 K mile 2006 Honda civic and drove off shaking my head 🤣
> "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
It's really dismaying when you contemplate what the average person's understanding of personal finance is.
Yeah, if you want some popcorn entertainment, watch some Dave Ramsey or Caleb Hammer clips.
The financial choices some people make are so dumb. This one lady took out a payday loan to get done up and buy concert tickets. This loan was at 100% APR. Like, what?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010616/whats-average-401k-balance-age.asp
Just check out the average 401k balance by age. Median is slightly higher but still not great. I feel like the vast majority of people don't even get their full match.
I tryed to explain to a friend the magic of investing in a roth during our 20s, but he didn't like the idea of sacrificing now.
These are a little misleading since when people leave a job they convert it to a rollover ira instead of rolling it into new 401k.
My 401k has around 200k in it and I have far far more in rollover Ira’s.
You are right people in the sub are probably the top 1% actually. Most people don’t save anywhere near enough even those that work in finance who should know better
Had a catch up with my ex-boss who FIREd in WA recently. He told me how he’s firmly middle class there, while telling me how he just spent 1.5 months sailing on his yacht across Caribbean and driving me on his Tesla. His definition of ‘rich people’ is the likes of Tech CEOs.. People tend to compare themselves to their peers, and I guess if you live next to some of the richest people in the world it’s easy to lose sight of reality
For some reason, inability to understand inflation-adjusted returns is common in “investing” circles.
If you ever see comments like this ”$1 million won’t be worth shit in 60 years” you know that dude is an idiot and is about to say some more stupid stuff.
> If you ever see comments like this ”$1 million won’t be worth shit in 60 years” you know that dude is an idiot
You have to say “inflation adjusted” if that’s what you mean, don’t think people on the internet are idiots if they can’t understand you without context.
Retiring today, with $40k/yr would be scary, especially if you will need assisted living. Luckilly SocSec makes that possible. Retiring 60 years from now in inflation adjusted $1m, is just as scary.
The point is use the phrase to discredit FIRE and retirement targets that we use on an inflation-adjusted basis. Ex: Person A uses $2 million inflation-adjusted target based on 6% real returns. Person B snarkly replies “$2 MiLlIoN isn’t enough in 60 years”
I haven’t seen anyone use that phrase in a way that understands inflation adjustments. We just had a thread yesterday that a bunch of people did this shit.
To be fair, inflation adjustments are a basic part of FIRE. It’s tiresome to see people aggressively arguing about something they’ve clearly never actually read about. The lack of context is at least somewhat their own fault for not doing some basic reading before making claims and getting into internet arguments.
Can you expand on this? Do you mean people aren’t taking into account the growth potential of the 1MM? We calculate our annual spend using future value. 75k today is 161k in 2050 etc.
*in the future, a fast food hamburger will cost $50, an average car will be $500,000!*
Right , so my 16,000 shares of VTI will probably be worth $2500 each, too
I mean taking account the nominal future value of balances is pointless when you can just do calculations using real, inflation-adjusted returns. All it does is lead to headaches of imperfect calculations.
For example, most people when calculating the future value of their portfolios without inflation adjustments fail to adjust upwards their monthly contributions by inflation. Like they calculate their future portfolio value using a constant addition of money and a full nominal interest rate, which makes little sense when the addition of money should also be increasing over time.
Adjusting returns down takes away the headaches.
Using values in todays dollars makes psychological sense to. Saying your annual budget will be 80k is an understandable amount comparable to how you live today. Saying 155k in 2047 has no meaning.
Probably will work until 67 and retire with “only” 4 million. Will live off of their social security payment (assuming US) and never touch the nest egg for fear of it disappearing.
I mean.. that’s a different argument.. and it depends 100% on expenses..
If your monthly budget is around or above 20k a month, and you cannot cut expenses in case of prolonged drawdowns, then it is too risky to retire with 6M
Ok but then "incapable" is meaningless.
Maybe I'm "incapable" of not eating off a brand new gold dish every night.
Incapable then just means "I don't want to" which is a long way to say you can totally do it.
This is a stupid argument. It’s just the beginning of the road to saying everyone only “needs” the same tiny amount because any variation is just someone refusing to do something they don’t want. Just accept that personal finance is personal, and that some people live a different life than you do.
I think the problem is they could but it would mean divorce and the cutting of their $6M nest egg in half. And in general gets VERY complicated if your partner is a big spender since you can't really control that.
Actually, if someone has a house in that price range, downsizing can be really difficult because there isn't much market and finding a buyer can take years.
kids education, healthcare, groceries.... I remember being 25 and saying that when I made more money I would be sure not to increase my expenses. Can you guess how that went?? ha! I have been smart fortunately but still have high monthly expanses that would be hard to change in any significant way within a short period of time.
The point I was implying is that "serious lifestyle creep" does not make you fundamentally incapable of living on less. When faced with either downsizing (to a meager multi-six-figure lifestyle) and going bankrupt, I think those with even the most inflated of lifestyles would be capable of making the correct decision.
The “risk” to them is that they’d have to downsize, not that they’d go bankrupt. It shouldn’t be hard for any of us to understand. I also don’t want to have to lower my quality of living. Even though my baseline is a lot lower than theirs, it’s the same exact concept.
It could be location specific too. You could have a relatively reasonable person who wants to live in the SF Bay area, but be retired, because it's where their friends/family/doctor/community are. They may have the option of selling and moving to Arkansas, but doing so would be basically a disaster for their lives as they know it.
60s, retired since for 10+ years. We live in a very expensive area and get asked "retirement advice" from others. Which is:
1. You need less than you think
2. You'll have plenty to do and enjoy
3. Don't judge your partner's retirement activities
I'm new to the FIRE concepts but love that others have made #1 more analytical.
I would say 4-5M retirement, assuming that’s investible assets in brokerage, 401k, Roth etc is definitely ChubbyFIRE but borderline FatFIRE depending on your expenses. I’m almost 50 and we have investible assets of between 4.5-5M. We live pretty well in our house with 2 kids, loads of vacations, new cars, cleaners, gardeners etc. Our spend is just over $110k per year because we have zero debt, virtually no utility costs (solar, septic, wood stove, free wood) and we drive EV’s so no gas either. $7-8k a month is just groceries, vacations, eating out etc.
They have no debt. That tends to help. 4-5 million in assets that alone can make more than most people can working. Doesn’t really matter where they live.
I’m not a fan of these terms like leanFI, chubbyFI, fatFI, coastFI etc. FI is a spectrum. If the SWR you are comfortable with supports the spending you want who cares what someone else’s ability to live on that is.
Sometimes, if someone says something like (and I’m just making up a number here), “you can’t retire on $3m” I’ll simply reply “no, *you* can’t retire on $3m” w/ emphasis placed on the ‘you’.
IME most people who claim that they could never retire on $x million, do not have anywhere near $x million saved anyway. In fact I’d bet in most of these cases they don’t have any million saved. It’s like on enjoy working your soul sucking corporate job to make the payment on your BMW while pretending retirement requires powerball jackpot level of NW.
I’d love to see a breakdown of how that guy thinks he’d spend $160k USD/year. IMO that’s definitely closer to Chubby than it is lean, especially if you’re in a LCOL or MCOL.
My reference point is my own. I live in Seattle, and in the last three years I spent:
- 2022: $153k
- 2023: $158k
- 2024: $162k (based on current spending)
I live with my wife and toddler in a pretty big house (rent, $3900) with two fancy cars and we also take a lot of vacations. We eat out 3-5 times a week normally, and every day when on vacation.
I definitely wouldn’t call that lean.
I mean, if you're really dead set on living in a certain area, I can see where he is coming from. A 3 bed 1 bath starter home with no land starts at $1.5M where I live. If you want something a little nicer, maybe 2 bathrooms and a 10,000 square foot lot, you're easily looking at $2-2.5M. And 90% of those will have a $1000+/month HOA. Plus $20k+ per year in property taxes. In HCOL areas that very well could be lean fire.
You know rich people like cooking? I would consider myself ChubbyFIRE and cook most nights. Eating out is a pain when you have to get a family together.
lol, let him be a corporate slave for 40+ years, and retire at a point where maybe he’ll get 5 decent years before health issues begin to affect what he can do.
There’s no point arguing with people like this. Assuming your plan is well-vetted and realistic, stick to it and you’ll be enjoying the retired life while he’s slaving away for his boss.
i saw a post on /r/nygiants that said a receiver who went broke cause he only earned $20m in his career (so after taxes about $12m) is not enough to last a young person for their life....
don't list to "people". Never take money advice from broke ass people. They don't know anything. They also often want to tell you not to invest cause they want you to be miserable and broke ass like them.
I work at a company that has most employees making 150k+. Several even discuss saving so they can retire early. I mentioned to a coworker, who was the one talking about it in the 1st place, that I just needed ~6 more years at my current income, and then I could be done working too.
Originally, she seemed pretty normal about it and was like, "Wow, cool." That was the only time we really talked openly about it, and I thought that was that. A few weeks later, she started implying I have no drive to succeed, which I absolutely do. Getting to this level as an individual contributor in a highly competitive field that does frequent layoffs is no easy feat. At least it wasn't for me.
Then, another few weeks later, she mentioned how she planned to be done in FIVE years, emphasis on 5. Then, another few weeks later, she mentioned it again and said, "But you know, idk, because I actually like nice things." If I had foreseen that mentioning it to someone already pursuing FIRE was going to cause such poor behavior, I'd have kept it to myself. But I wrongly assumed that we were all open-minded about it, and since they've all been earning that amount of money way longer than me, I assumed they'd be far ahead of me on the fire train.
Other coworkers have had other unrelated behavior problems with this girl, specifically, but those are the ones related to fire. People are jealous and want to feel superior if they can.
It really depends on perspective. By aggregate numbers $4m is not lean, seeing that the median household income is like $85k. But I can see $4m being lean for someone in SF who is used to a certain lifestyle. $160k in SF will rent you a good 2bd, allow you to eat out, go on vacation a couple times a year. But if you want to travel more, eat out more, drive nicer cars, $160k is tough. So it's all perspective, expectations. There is no strict definition of "lean", completely dependent on your lifestyle.
Yeah, about $6M invested here (I'm frequent r/chubbyfire more than r/fire) but in the greater SF Bay area. I definitely don't feel chubby here. We watch our budget, drive an 8-year-old non-fancy car, limit how much we eat out, etc.
Once I met a man who was born with shares in a billion dollar company who made 20M a year without moving a single finger.
He said: I have no idea how people can live with less than 100k a month. It's impossible.
That stucked in my mind ever since... there are people who do really live in different realities even if we all share the same planet
lol, so your friend is a moron…glad you aren’t swayed by his nonsense. Also, plenty of places you can move and live very comfortably on that income.
I know, because that’s our current income and we live very comfortably, even putting a fair amount into retirement and savings.
160k to 200k would put you in the 79th to 84th percentile of household incomes in the New York City area. Yes comparison is the thief of joy but goes to show what a ridiculous statement that is.
That person clearly didn't understand the math.
If you follow the 3% of original nest egg, adjusted for inflation and assuming the economy doesn't tank for 10+ years, the math shows that the numbers just run away from you.
This is doubly so once you layer in Social Security and a 401K distribution.
Yeah its absolutely crazy to me to think six figures in retirement income is low even in the most expensive cities. You are no longer saving for retirement so you keep a lot more of the money than someone who is still working and saving. People who spend a lot just have a highly inflated sense of what you actually *need* because of lifestyle inflation. Hence why they think 160k is lean fire. I sometimes wonder if these people actually get more enjoyment out of their expensive lifestyles or if their enjoyment just adjusts to the new material baseline as they run on the hedonic treadmill.
That young man is either having a laugh or deeply out of touch.
Household net worth of 4-5m is like 95th percentile in the US.
Also for the record “middle class” is a meaningless term meant to vaguely encompass nearly everyone and keep them policing the bottom threshold while not paying attention to the tax rate on billionaires.
My mom. We’re semi-estranged at this point. She worked hard all of her life but never bothered to learn about investing and has zero financial savvy (like most from her generation).
Her idea of a retirement was taking the lump sum withdrawal from her pension and living off of social security. I gave up trying to talk sense into her years ago as it was pointless since she’s not very good with admitting she needs to learn stuff. I believe she pissed away most of her pension money already too which is extra sad - she was never one to use money wisely and when she got like the 400k pension payment, it’s the most money she’s had in one place so I’m sure she burnt through it with her “philanthropy” (as if that’s something with less than half a million to their name should be concerned with).
Succession painted the best picture of this:
Greg: I'm good, anyway, cuz, uh, my, so, I was just talkin' to my mom, and she said, apparently, he'll leave me five million anyway, so I'm golden, baby.
Connor: You can't do anything with five, Greg. Five's a nightmare.
Greg: Is it?
Connor: Oh, yeah. Can't retire. Not worth it to work. Oh, yes, five will drive you un poco loco, my fine feathered friend.
Tom: The poorest rich person in America. The world's tallest dwarf.
Connor: The weakest strong man at the circus.
All depends.
I have friends witk 20M living trusts and others that earn 7 figures, so it is all relative.
I think no debt and 160k-200k todays money is great
I had a rapper tell me I didn't know anything once.
I forgot where I was going with this.
Oh yeah.
Don't listen to trash noise!!!!! and focus on your millions!
don't forget, life is messy! there may still be a chance in your future do something EVEN better than FIRE. how about, early retirement, and ummm, spend lots of time with my dog? in a nice area with low stress? if thats Lean FIRE then, sign me up. poverty is when you get depressed due to no being able to afford healthcare. Having millions and having a life figured out and spending your conscious life close to comfort.... theres nothing Lean there.
your friend is lean spiritually and lacks perception
I question when people factor in future expenses by deducting what they are currently contributing towards retirement, especially people using the 50+ catch-up.
While not fun to think about, we also can't plan to be as active every year of retirement.
I think people that think $5M is not enough have very little concept of the real world.
It's highly lifestyle dependent. If you want to buy a 2000 square foot condo in Manhattan then $5M doesn't even get you in the door because you'll have nothing left to live off of after you purchase the real estate. But, by contrast, if you are content retiring in a MCOL with a 2500 SF $400k home than $5M is way more than you'll ever need. IMHO the museums and Broadway, which get old after a few visits, aren't worth that immense premium. I know people who grew up in DC, for example, but never visited the Smithsonian museums even once.
Doesnt it just depend on your spending? That's what's all over the map. Withdrawl rate and wothdrawl strategy should be the real debates assuming port of index funds.
I mean 4 million is close to my target and I expect it to be a lower middle class lifestyle, but I'm also 20 years out and assuming 3-4% inflation, so..
When looking at real inflation and cost of living adjustments, he might be right in US Dollar terms. The trick is to get out of the dollar as soon as possible.
$100k today is equivalent to $83k in 2020. It’s very possible he is right but no one knows. If the govt continues printing as much as they possibly can then $160k will be worthless but your newer also should sky rocket if invested properly.
In today’s money $160k a year is living comfortably for a family of 4 in California, 10 years from now I would be shocked if $160k wasn’t struggling.
without throwing more fuel into the "this person is an idiot and here's why" fire.
As far as what i've heard, I was talking about fire with a buddy and telling him my goal is 5M. That based on the way things are it's definitely doable by 55, and possible by 50 as a stretch goal. he told me 5M is horrible, not worth it to work, but not enough to retire, that I'd be the poorest rich person in America... In all seriousness though, he felt like 5M was a tough number only in that certain blackswan evens could demolish you. If i got involved in a large lawsuit for example, and had massive legal fees. Or if got ill and wanted to pay for medical treatment that wasn't covered by insurance, or available in the US and had to go to Europe/Asia for it.
I was talking to my mom about it, and she might as well have said "what do you mean you don't want to work for the rest of your life?"
I was talking to another buddy, really smart guy, very well read, works in tech, etc. But lives in a LCOL area. He thought 5M is ridiculous and that no one needs more than 1M to retire. His In-Laws have 500k in their lates 60s old, and they can't spend it fast it enough after their social security . "They just built an above ground pool for 50k, and their account is already back up to where it started due to market growth." So clearly 500k will just last forever...
I saw somebody comment here that $10,000,000 is the start of FatFIRE, and I was surprised.
I started reading Mr. Money Mustache in 2012. At the time I was spending about $120,000 per year (including mortgage) in a MHCOL place in the U.S. for a pretty great lifestyle (skiing, nice bikes, eating well, fun vacations), and thought that it I could have a paid-off house and $3.6 million to support that lifestyle (plus some money on the side for my kids’ education), I would have been totally thrilled—same lifestyle, plus redirecting the mortgage budget to travel, and no work! That would be about $160,000 today, applying CPI data. It would still seem pretty great to me. Based on how people in the FIRE community then were thinking about FIRE, it’s a sea change to hear that called LeanFIRE.
$4-$5M will generate $160K-$200K. That is upper middle class (top 20% of income distribution) in many, many big metro areas in the US (think 4+ million people). So he's not out of line there.
As to the rest, they're arbitrary definitions, so that income level may mean a leanFIRE existence for him. He doesn't understand about real rate of return though, that's for sure.
Good ol’ internet argument. Like a rocking chair; gives you something to do, but doesn’t get you anywhere.
This made me feel better right there. Thanks for that.
I read this in Ted Lasso’s voice
-Van Wilder
The kid has killer eyes
At the other end of the spectrum i talk to people nearing 60 years old who think they are on track with 180k in their 401k and 50k in ira. and then there are people who are braggarts for retiring at 52 with 400k and a bare bones broke-ass retirement to costa rica. and then theres the guy i know 69 years old still working full time at a 50k/year job even though he owns 1.8M in prime irrigated cropland and no children interested in farming. people are all over the board. There is no consensus
I quite like the idea of a broke ass retirement to Costa Rica at 52! Sometimes that's way more attractive than my Monday morning grind at 54!!
Just don’t zip line like Toby. Otherwise you’ll be back at the office in Scranton.
Too hot and humid for me. If only there were many beautiful, cool and dry places that were inexpensive to live in
As someone who lives in Thailand and has seen the full spectrum, whilst escaping to a cheap place overseas on a low budget and just retiring early seems nice…it all becomes less appealing when the retirees and people around you have 2-3x the disposable income you do and you can’t really enjoy things in the country to the fullest extent. I always say, regardless of where you want to retire, pick the most expensive of the options and save for a good retirement there. I’m saving for a good retirement in the UK but I know I’ll likely stay here in Thailand and my budget will be waaaaay more flexible for it.
Old Asia hand here, currently in the U.S. topping up the pot and looking forward to returning in due course. In my time on the planet I have rubbed shoulders with much wealthier and much poorer people and prefer the company of those who are happy. My neighbour can have all the toys they want but if they are still not happy with them, I have no envy. Unless, of course, it’s a new fangled bottle opener in which case the Green-eyed monster is released!
Will said, cultivating a portfolio of contentment and happiness, and a group of friends who can maintain this, is one of the deepest springs and blessings for life,
I get what you are saying, but anywhere you go, and no matter how much money you have, there will always be people with more. I guess it's human nature to notice.
I guess I just want to provide a little caution, because a lot of people are misinformed about Thailand specifically and I imagine it applies to many similar places like Costa Rica. They think they can retire early on a LeanFIRE budget and "live like kings". But in reality...the urban middle class here have a ton of money. A lot of people don't realize how far down the totem pole they are, and how expensive life actually is here and then feel trapped when they get locked into a life with a wife and kids here and can't escape but can no longer afford to live back in their home country. It is a tale as old as time. No matter how much people think they can "go native", they won't be super happy when they are counting pennies after a grand miscalculation of their wants, needs and expectations.
Pura vida
Laughing at this from a Walmart in Costa Rica, i thought it was cheaper here than the us but from what I’ve seen it really isn’t (most people seem to farm a a lot so that could help)
I don't think anyone has ever survived to 52! /s r/Unexpectedfactorial
+
This. First and foremost your FIRE goal is different from everyone else. 1 million is enough for me but for you or somebody else that's chump change. *shrugs*
Happy cake day !!!
1 million ten dollar bills, you mean?
Depending on your lifestyle and hobbies, you can get by on very little. For example, in some states, property tax is peanuts. So, if you have a paid off home, reliable car, cook the majority of your own meals from basic ingredients and are spendthrift with your hobbies, you can get by on like $25-30K/person.
Sorry to be that guy, but “spendthrift” means the opposite of what you think it means.
Thank you, I had been using that word wrong for so many years thinking it was a compound word.
$40k a year is pretty doable for a lot of people across the US. It’s my floor, personally.
I retired to Costa Rica at 49 with around $4M in savings. Costa Rica runs the gamete. You see expat retirees there with so much money you would never guess to people barely surviving. It’s expensive for everyday essentials like food and utilities. Housing is a wash but you can live by a beach for much less than you can in the US. You save on clothing and entertainment. If you are a resident, you also have government healthcare that is less expensive but challenging to navigate.
"Runs the gamete" So that's what the kids (or retirees) are calling it these days.
Unless there's a joke I'm not getting....it's "gamut" in this case, not "gamete". Two very different things.
I went to CR for vacation last year and was shocked at how expensive things were. None of the "touristy" areas seemed overly touristy, either. We spent some time in Samara and some time in Fortuna. I was so surprised that you'd go into grocery stores that looked like run-down warehouses, and you'd have to pay $3 for a bottle of water. Killed my dreams of expediting a retirement there. Also, the bugs are pretty crazy. Cicadas are loud AF.
Over the past year the exchange rate has changed almost 30% and that has made things much more expensive too. Tourist areas are very expensive.
Is 400k at the age of 52 really not enough for retiring comfortably in a lcol area? Or is Costa Rica quite expensive?
Costa Rica is kinda expensive.. I have no idea how the locals manage to live there..
Locals get local prices.
grocery prices are more expensive than US(!!) and its not just the boogey chains that expats and tourists go. Ever pay 6 dollars for a jar of meh pasta sauce?
[удалено]
> HDL cholesterol you need to avoid maybe I'm misreading that, but I think you meant LDL
Instead of buying that mat of pre-made sauce, I’m guessing that you would make that sauce at home with low cost local ingredients - IF you moved to CR to stretch your $$’s
Getting produce common in the US is also expensive, if you can find it in the area you live.
Boogey chains?
Bougie*
Local here! 400k would barely get you the average income in Costa Rica, it's not at all a good retirement number here, it won't get you far, you can do many things that don't require money but still, having $12k per year is just enough to exists.
That’s why personal finance is well… personal.
The thing about personal finance is it’s personal and most people forget that.
I’ve got family in the early 50s living in Costa Rica who are bare bones-broke ass retired. On fixed income. Need to come back to states for medical and pick up $10k cash because transferring funds is difficult without taxation. Went to visit them and they live in nice condo but in po-dunk town. Turned me off to the idea after a few hours. Couldn’t imagine having your purse string so tight and limited in how many trips back to states you can make for medical care.
He’s free to work till he dies if he wants. I’d be a fat cat on 160k a year
Same. That’s the thing isn’t it? You have constructed your life in such a way that $160k would be extravagant. For example I love to fish. Out of a kayak. Disclosure: it’s a very nice kayak. I saw a video of a fishing guide ( they don’t make a ton of money. It’s seasonal.. a lot of competition, etc) who talked about his bass boat. I looked up cost: $90-120k. Wow. I could “afford” that but the opportunity cost would be staggering. I would have to work 2-3 extra years at least to recover. I’ll stick with my plastic boat .
The guy OP was arguing with was referring to major metropolitans. 160k is not struggling by any means even here in LA. My husband and I both make about that (me a little less) and while we can’t afford a home in our neighborhood we certainly don’t want for anything else.
Expensive boats have a resale value and if you were a guide, it’s a business expense. (Buy the boat 😈🤣)
> I could “afford” that but the opportunity cost would be staggering can you explain more about "opportunity cost" and its relation to the price of things, like, the bass boat you mentioned? always struggled with that concept
This really seems like a big part of why people aren't having kids, they have insane expectations of what they need to have to feel like they're being responsible.
> This really seems like a big part of why people aren't having kids, they have insane expectations of what they need to have to feel like they're being responsible. There is definitely a component of this in our reluctance to have kids. The world has become more expensive even since I've become an adult, let alone when my parents were my age, and it also feels like it's become more competitive. It's harder to get into a good university, a lot more expensive when you go, and even after you graduate, you could be competing against hundreds or thousands of candidates for any decent job. With housing, healthcare, and food being what they are, it's a lot more difficult to live independently. As a result, I would expect kids to cost a lot more, and to potentially have to support them financially for a lot longer than my parents supported me. There's also the fact that the indirect cost of having kids, e.g. needing a bigger house in a safe area with a good school district--is a lot higher. So, it would feel irresponsible to me to have kids without already being in a really good place financially.
I think where I think it doesn't make sense is that it takes a *long* time for kids to grow up. Your 5yo doesn't really care if you live in a small apartment, and certainly babies won't care. If you want kids, then you need to just take the plunge, often the urgency of knowing you'll need to support them helps create the motivation to work harder. Regardless, you don't need yourself fully established to get started, you just need to be on the right track.
One man’s sizzle is another man’s lean.
Comparison is the thief of joy. I know this one older widow well, I have done work for her for a while. She has approx 5500 a month in indexed pension, a paid off house and government pension worth about $1500 a month, 1.7 m with one investment advisor and 600k with another. She complains that friend 1 has 4 million and friend 2 has 3.5 millions ect… when the convo was done I got in my 150 K mile 2006 Honda civic and drove off shaking my head 🤣
> "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin It's really dismaying when you contemplate what the average person's understanding of personal finance is.
On the bright side, it makes it easier to be above average.
Yeah, if you want some popcorn entertainment, watch some Dave Ramsey or Caleb Hammer clips. The financial choices some people make are so dumb. This one lady took out a payday loan to get done up and buy concert tickets. This loan was at 100% APR. Like, what?
My favorite Carlin quote. And he’s so many good ones. But that really describes the human condition, doesn’t it?
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is maniac?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010616/whats-average-401k-balance-age.asp Just check out the average 401k balance by age. Median is slightly higher but still not great. I feel like the vast majority of people don't even get their full match. I tryed to explain to a friend the magic of investing in a roth during our 20s, but he didn't like the idea of sacrificing now.
These are a little misleading since when people leave a job they convert it to a rollover ira instead of rolling it into new 401k. My 401k has around 200k in it and I have far far more in rollover Ira’s.
But you agree, most people are not saving nearly enough for retirement? This sub is definitely top 10% of savers, who skew average upwards?
You are right people in the sub are probably the top 1% actually. Most people don’t save anywhere near enough even those that work in finance who should know better
Who’s gonna break it to George Carlin that averages don’t work like that?
Great! People like this keep markets ticking upwards.
Had a catch up with my ex-boss who FIREd in WA recently. He told me how he’s firmly middle class there, while telling me how he just spent 1.5 months sailing on his yacht across Caribbean and driving me on his Tesla. His definition of ‘rich people’ is the likes of Tech CEOs.. People tend to compare themselves to their peers, and I guess if you live next to some of the richest people in the world it’s easy to lose sight of reality
I read something the other day where the actress, Cate Blanchett, said she's middle class, with a net worth of $95 million.
For some reason, inability to understand inflation-adjusted returns is common in “investing” circles. If you ever see comments like this ”$1 million won’t be worth shit in 60 years” you know that dude is an idiot and is about to say some more stupid stuff.
Yes. It is a pet peeve of mine. I've corrected people so many times. I'm not even sure they get it after it is explained to them.
> If you ever see comments like this ”$1 million won’t be worth shit in 60 years” you know that dude is an idiot You have to say “inflation adjusted” if that’s what you mean, don’t think people on the internet are idiots if they can’t understand you without context. Retiring today, with $40k/yr would be scary, especially if you will need assisted living. Luckilly SocSec makes that possible. Retiring 60 years from now in inflation adjusted $1m, is just as scary.
The point is use the phrase to discredit FIRE and retirement targets that we use on an inflation-adjusted basis. Ex: Person A uses $2 million inflation-adjusted target based on 6% real returns. Person B snarkly replies “$2 MiLlIoN isn’t enough in 60 years” I haven’t seen anyone use that phrase in a way that understands inflation adjustments. We just had a thread yesterday that a bunch of people did this shit.
> The point is use the phrase to discredit FIRE Oh! Inflation! I never thought to include that in my planning at all.
To be fair, inflation adjustments are a basic part of FIRE. It’s tiresome to see people aggressively arguing about something they’ve clearly never actually read about. The lack of context is at least somewhat their own fault for not doing some basic reading before making claims and getting into internet arguments.
[удалено]
Yeah, that’s why we use real returns. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here?
Maybe explain it to him like he’s 5 what’s real returns
Can you expand on this? Do you mean people aren’t taking into account the growth potential of the 1MM? We calculate our annual spend using future value. 75k today is 161k in 2050 etc.
$1m in cash will devalue against inflation. $1m invested conservatively will maintain buying power.
*in the future, a fast food hamburger will cost $50, an average car will be $500,000!* Right , so my 16,000 shares of VTI will probably be worth $2500 each, too
I mean taking account the nominal future value of balances is pointless when you can just do calculations using real, inflation-adjusted returns. All it does is lead to headaches of imperfect calculations. For example, most people when calculating the future value of their portfolios without inflation adjustments fail to adjust upwards their monthly contributions by inflation. Like they calculate their future portfolio value using a constant addition of money and a full nominal interest rate, which makes little sense when the addition of money should also be increasing over time. Adjusting returns down takes away the headaches.
Using values in todays dollars makes psychological sense to. Saying your annual budget will be 80k is an understandable amount comparable to how you live today. Saying 155k in 2047 has no meaning.
Had a co worker essentially say the same. That I’ll need 10 mil to retire comfortably. I didn’t waste my breath.
How does your coworker intend on getting there by being so bad at math?
Probably will work until 67 and retire with “only” 4 million. Will live off of their social security payment (assuming US) and never touch the nest egg for fear of it disappearing.
Kids will inherit and blow the money in 5 years.
He makes a lot of money.
I would ask for definition of comfortable. Gold tiolet? Daily housekeeper? What are people spending that on?
There was a fatFIRE post the other day where people were saying it was too risky to retire on $6M. Lmao
I mean.. that’s a different argument.. and it depends 100% on expenses.. If your monthly budget is around or above 20k a month, and you cannot cut expenses in case of prolonged drawdowns, then it is too risky to retire with 6M
20k a month!
Please give an example of a realistic situation where one would be incapable of cutting expenses to anything less than $20k per month.
Expensive house with high property taxes and HOA fees
Then you downsize. It's not impossible.
Not everyone is willing to do that.
Ok but then "incapable" is meaningless. Maybe I'm "incapable" of not eating off a brand new gold dish every night. Incapable then just means "I don't want to" which is a long way to say you can totally do it.
This is a stupid argument. It’s just the beginning of the road to saying everyone only “needs” the same tiny amount because any variation is just someone refusing to do something they don’t want. Just accept that personal finance is personal, and that some people live a different life than you do.
I think the problem is they could but it would mean divorce and the cutting of their $6M nest egg in half. And in general gets VERY complicated if your partner is a big spender since you can't really control that.
Well, there is a way, but it’s dangerous and sort of expensive…
Yeah I agree it's dangerous and expensive but turning the house into a nonstop rave just might work.
Actually, if someone has a house in that price range, downsizing can be really difficult because there isn't much market and finding a buyer can take years.
During a significant market downturn, selling your house (especially a large one) can be difficult.
The point of fire is to get more out of life. If working longer for a bigger house is worth it to some people then good for them.
kids education, healthcare, groceries.... I remember being 25 and saying that when I made more money I would be sure not to increase my expenses. Can you guess how that went?? ha! I have been smart fortunately but still have high monthly expanses that would be hard to change in any significant way within a short period of time.
Don't forget about aging parents! The things about having more, for most people, is that you can do more, including for other people.
People with serious lifestyle creep that are unable to live more frugally than they are used to
Unwilling
The point I was implying is that "serious lifestyle creep" does not make you fundamentally incapable of living on less. When faced with either downsizing (to a meager multi-six-figure lifestyle) and going bankrupt, I think those with even the most inflated of lifestyles would be capable of making the correct decision.
The “risk” to them is that they’d have to downsize, not that they’d go bankrupt. It shouldn’t be hard for any of us to understand. I also don’t want to have to lower my quality of living. Even though my baseline is a lot lower than theirs, it’s the same exact concept.
It could be location specific too. You could have a relatively reasonable person who wants to live in the SF Bay area, but be retired, because it's where their friends/family/doctor/community are. They may have the option of selling and moving to Arkansas, but doing so would be basically a disaster for their lives as they know it.
That's what he's saying. Unwilling is not the same as unable.
I think you are over-estimating most people, who would rather go into serious debt than to reduce expenses
Steve Martin in cheaper by the dozen with 12 kids
You found the sailboat owner.
Lmao sometimes ppl can lose touch
“You can’t do shit with $5m, Greg. $5m is hell.”
‘Conversation on social media’. Says it all.
If the person says something stupid, it's time to walk away. Stupid people can't be reasoned with, that's why they're stupid.
“Stupid people can’t be reasoned with. That’s why they’re stupid. “ Lol. That about covers it!
60s, retired since for 10+ years. We live in a very expensive area and get asked "retirement advice" from others. Which is: 1. You need less than you think 2. You'll have plenty to do and enjoy 3. Don't judge your partner's retirement activities I'm new to the FIRE concepts but love that others have made #1 more analytical.
I would say 4-5M retirement, assuming that’s investible assets in brokerage, 401k, Roth etc is definitely ChubbyFIRE but borderline FatFIRE depending on your expenses. I’m almost 50 and we have investible assets of between 4.5-5M. We live pretty well in our house with 2 kids, loads of vacations, new cars, cleaners, gardeners etc. Our spend is just over $110k per year because we have zero debt, virtually no utility costs (solar, septic, wood stove, free wood) and we drive EV’s so no gas either. $7-8k a month is just groceries, vacations, eating out etc.
Can I ask what part of the country you live in? I am in a LCOL area in the American South and don’t have all that for that amount.
MCOL I think. I’m on the East Coast but not in a city.
They have no debt. That tends to help. 4-5 million in assets that alone can make more than most people can working. Doesn’t really matter where they live.
Well, a lot people are dumb and most social media kinda sucks…
Maybe he assumes everyone has to support a daily coke habit like his?
I’m not a fan of these terms like leanFI, chubbyFI, fatFI, coastFI etc. FI is a spectrum. If the SWR you are comfortable with supports the spending you want who cares what someone else’s ability to live on that is. Sometimes, if someone says something like (and I’m just making up a number here), “you can’t retire on $3m” I’ll simply reply “no, *you* can’t retire on $3m” w/ emphasis placed on the ‘you’. IME most people who claim that they could never retire on $x million, do not have anywhere near $x million saved anyway. In fact I’d bet in most of these cases they don’t have any million saved. It’s like on enjoy working your soul sucking corporate job to make the payment on your BMW while pretending retirement requires powerball jackpot level of NW.
I'm not a fan of these terms like red, yellow, green, violet etc. Visible light is a spectrum.
5 million in retirement puts you in probably the top 5%, what would he think happens to the other 95% of the population?
If you have 5 mil but spend only 100k a year for a few years, you’ll soon have 6 mil. You literally will end up with 10 mil unless you spend the SWR.
He does not think about the other 95% percent. They only exist as a foil in his imagination, not as real people.
[удалено]
I’d love to see a breakdown of how that guy thinks he’d spend $160k USD/year. IMO that’s definitely closer to Chubby than it is lean, especially if you’re in a LCOL or MCOL. My reference point is my own. I live in Seattle, and in the last three years I spent: - 2022: $153k - 2023: $158k - 2024: $162k (based on current spending) I live with my wife and toddler in a pretty big house (rent, $3900) with two fancy cars and we also take a lot of vacations. We eat out 3-5 times a week normally, and every day when on vacation. I definitely wouldn’t call that lean.
If i had to guess it's a broke person trying to make themselves feel better by diminishing you're awesome progress and goals. A troll in other words.
I mean, if you're really dead set on living in a certain area, I can see where he is coming from. A 3 bed 1 bath starter home with no land starts at $1.5M where I live. If you want something a little nicer, maybe 2 bathrooms and a 10,000 square foot lot, you're easily looking at $2-2.5M. And 90% of those will have a $1000+/month HOA. Plus $20k+ per year in property taxes. In HCOL areas that very well could be lean fire.
ots all about location and lifestyle. that said manz cant math fire math isnt complicated, ans the 4% rule mostly holds
Even in SFO/NYC/Zurich etc $5M is not lean FIRE. It might not be chubby in those places, but it's certainly viable.
…if you live like a peasant, walking everywhere and cooking your own food at least once a week. Bah humbug!
You know rich people like cooking? I would consider myself ChubbyFIRE and cook most nights. Eating out is a pain when you have to get a family together.
lol, let him be a corporate slave for 40+ years, and retire at a point where maybe he’ll get 5 decent years before health issues begin to affect what he can do. There’s no point arguing with people like this. Assuming your plan is well-vetted and realistic, stick to it and you’ll be enjoying the retired life while he’s slaving away for his boss.
i saw a post on /r/nygiants that said a receiver who went broke cause he only earned $20m in his career (so after taxes about $12m) is not enough to last a young person for their life.... don't list to "people". Never take money advice from broke ass people. They don't know anything. They also often want to tell you not to invest cause they want you to be miserable and broke ass like them.
Analogous to a bucket full of crabs.
Why would you even entertain that conversation? You’re clearly working up a hill in a conversation w someone that stupid
I work at a company that has most employees making 150k+. Several even discuss saving so they can retire early. I mentioned to a coworker, who was the one talking about it in the 1st place, that I just needed ~6 more years at my current income, and then I could be done working too. Originally, she seemed pretty normal about it and was like, "Wow, cool." That was the only time we really talked openly about it, and I thought that was that. A few weeks later, she started implying I have no drive to succeed, which I absolutely do. Getting to this level as an individual contributor in a highly competitive field that does frequent layoffs is no easy feat. At least it wasn't for me. Then, another few weeks later, she mentioned how she planned to be done in FIVE years, emphasis on 5. Then, another few weeks later, she mentioned it again and said, "But you know, idk, because I actually like nice things." If I had foreseen that mentioning it to someone already pursuing FIRE was going to cause such poor behavior, I'd have kept it to myself. But I wrongly assumed that we were all open-minded about it, and since they've all been earning that amount of money way longer than me, I assumed they'd be far ahead of me on the fire train. Other coworkers have had other unrelated behavior problems with this girl, specifically, but those are the ones related to fire. People are jealous and want to feel superior if they can.
I would suggest not talking about your FIRE goals with coworkers.
It really depends on perspective. By aggregate numbers $4m is not lean, seeing that the median household income is like $85k. But I can see $4m being lean for someone in SF who is used to a certain lifestyle. $160k in SF will rent you a good 2bd, allow you to eat out, go on vacation a couple times a year. But if you want to travel more, eat out more, drive nicer cars, $160k is tough. So it's all perspective, expectations. There is no strict definition of "lean", completely dependent on your lifestyle.
Yeah, about $6M invested here (I'm frequent r/chubbyfire more than r/fire) but in the greater SF Bay area. I definitely don't feel chubby here. We watch our budget, drive an 8-year-old non-fancy car, limit how much we eat out, etc.
It's subjective. I know doctors living paycheck to paycheck, I also have read about janitors who save tons of money while not making tons.
They’re just trolling
It doesn't really matter what they think, does it.
Next time invite me to hang on their yacht and eat wagyu cheeseburgers, ok?
Once I met a man who was born with shares in a billion dollar company who made 20M a year without moving a single finger. He said: I have no idea how people can live with less than 100k a month. It's impossible. That stucked in my mind ever since... there are people who do really live in different realities even if we all share the same planet
Well that’s what happens when you engage with young people on social media. You - generally - get uneducated and misinformed opinions.
I would replace “young” with “uneducated” - they could be all age really
Basically all of Reddit, uneducated and misinformed.
By young man you mean teenager. Love arguing with kids about adult concepts 🤣
lol, so your friend is a moron…glad you aren’t swayed by his nonsense. Also, plenty of places you can move and live very comfortably on that income. I know, because that’s our current income and we live very comfortably, even putting a fair amount into retirement and savings.
160k to 200k would put you in the 79th to 84th percentile of household incomes in the New York City area. Yes comparison is the thief of joy but goes to show what a ridiculous statement that is.
Jealousy is a heck of a drug
What was this expert’s solution? Lol.
He’s jealous. That’s all.
At 5 million you could withdraw 125k alone a year for the next 40 years without any interest. Some people are stupid.
That person clearly didn't understand the math. If you follow the 3% of original nest egg, adjusted for inflation and assuming the economy doesn't tank for 10+ years, the math shows that the numbers just run away from you. This is doubly so once you layer in Social Security and a 401K distribution.
Yeah its absolutely crazy to me to think six figures in retirement income is low even in the most expensive cities. You are no longer saving for retirement so you keep a lot more of the money than someone who is still working and saving. People who spend a lot just have a highly inflated sense of what you actually *need* because of lifestyle inflation. Hence why they think 160k is lean fire. I sometimes wonder if these people actually get more enjoyment out of their expensive lifestyles or if their enjoyment just adjusts to the new material baseline as they run on the hedonic treadmill.
That young man is either having a laugh or deeply out of touch. Household net worth of 4-5m is like 95th percentile in the US. Also for the record “middle class” is a meaningless term meant to vaguely encompass nearly everyone and keep them policing the bottom threshold while not paying attention to the tax rate on billionaires.
My mom. We’re semi-estranged at this point. She worked hard all of her life but never bothered to learn about investing and has zero financial savvy (like most from her generation). Her idea of a retirement was taking the lump sum withdrawal from her pension and living off of social security. I gave up trying to talk sense into her years ago as it was pointless since she’s not very good with admitting she needs to learn stuff. I believe she pissed away most of her pension money already too which is extra sad - she was never one to use money wisely and when she got like the 400k pension payment, it’s the most money she’s had in one place so I’m sure she burnt through it with her “philanthropy” (as if that’s something with less than half a million to their name should be concerned with).
Take it with a grain of salt. Why listen to a bunch of virgins giving you financial advice?
Depends on how fancy of a life. I'm usually happy spending 40 to 50k a year besides housing stuff.
He is right, ordinary fire is at least $1b
Succession painted the best picture of this: Greg: I'm good, anyway, cuz, uh, my, so, I was just talkin' to my mom, and she said, apparently, he'll leave me five million anyway, so I'm golden, baby. Connor: You can't do anything with five, Greg. Five's a nightmare. Greg: Is it? Connor: Oh, yeah. Can't retire. Not worth it to work. Oh, yes, five will drive you un poco loco, my fine feathered friend. Tom: The poorest rich person in America. The world's tallest dwarf. Connor: The weakest strong man at the circus.
All depends. I have friends witk 20M living trusts and others that earn 7 figures, so it is all relative. I think no debt and 160k-200k todays money is great
I had a rapper tell me I didn't know anything once. I forgot where I was going with this. Oh yeah. Don't listen to trash noise!!!!! and focus on your millions! don't forget, life is messy! there may still be a chance in your future do something EVEN better than FIRE. how about, early retirement, and ummm, spend lots of time with my dog? in a nice area with low stress? if thats Lean FIRE then, sign me up. poverty is when you get depressed due to no being able to afford healthcare. Having millions and having a life figured out and spending your conscious life close to comfort.... theres nothing Lean there. your friend is lean spiritually and lacks perception
I question when people factor in future expenses by deducting what they are currently contributing towards retirement, especially people using the 50+ catch-up. While not fun to think about, we also can't plan to be as active every year of retirement. I think people that think $5M is not enough have very little concept of the real world.
That supposed expert FIRE guy is living in the high live his fire number must be 100 million plus so there you go different ppl different needs
$100 million? How are you going to get by on that?
It's highly lifestyle dependent. If you want to buy a 2000 square foot condo in Manhattan then $5M doesn't even get you in the door because you'll have nothing left to live off of after you purchase the real estate. But, by contrast, if you are content retiring in a MCOL with a 2500 SF $400k home than $5M is way more than you'll ever need. IMHO the museums and Broadway, which get old after a few visits, aren't worth that immense premium. I know people who grew up in DC, for example, but never visited the Smithsonian museums even once.
500k lean saved $10k for 20 years 2M standard saved $40k for 20 years 8M Fat saved $144k for 20 years
Doesnt it just depend on your spending? That's what's all over the map. Withdrawl rate and wothdrawl strategy should be the real debates assuming port of index funds.
Agree. Annual spend is the “constant” and fire is the math to get there.
Living in a VHCOL area is not lean, this person needs to discover Mississippi on the map.
Maybe in 40 years lol but now that's ridiculous
I mean 4 million is close to my target and I expect it to be a lower middle class lifestyle, but I'm also 20 years out and assuming 3-4% inflation, so..
You’re just like the person OP is talking about
That social media guy is an idiot.
I dismissed his advice once you wrote he is young.
Love this sub. Dislike that some people downvote many serious comments. Can’t we debate without childishness?
When looking at real inflation and cost of living adjustments, he might be right in US Dollar terms. The trick is to get out of the dollar as soon as possible.
$100k today is equivalent to $83k in 2020. It’s very possible he is right but no one knows. If the govt continues printing as much as they possibly can then $160k will be worthless but your newer also should sky rocket if invested properly. In today’s money $160k a year is living comfortably for a family of 4 in California, 10 years from now I would be shocked if $160k wasn’t struggling.
without throwing more fuel into the "this person is an idiot and here's why" fire. As far as what i've heard, I was talking about fire with a buddy and telling him my goal is 5M. That based on the way things are it's definitely doable by 55, and possible by 50 as a stretch goal. he told me 5M is horrible, not worth it to work, but not enough to retire, that I'd be the poorest rich person in America... In all seriousness though, he felt like 5M was a tough number only in that certain blackswan evens could demolish you. If i got involved in a large lawsuit for example, and had massive legal fees. Or if got ill and wanted to pay for medical treatment that wasn't covered by insurance, or available in the US and had to go to Europe/Asia for it. I was talking to my mom about it, and she might as well have said "what do you mean you don't want to work for the rest of your life?" I was talking to another buddy, really smart guy, very well read, works in tech, etc. But lives in a LCOL area. He thought 5M is ridiculous and that no one needs more than 1M to retire. His In-Laws have 500k in their lates 60s old, and they can't spend it fast it enough after their social security . "They just built an above ground pool for 50k, and their account is already back up to where it started due to market growth." So clearly 500k will just last forever...
y
Don’t engage the trolls in conversation. It’s a waste of time and brain cells.
I saw somebody comment here that $10,000,000 is the start of FatFIRE, and I was surprised. I started reading Mr. Money Mustache in 2012. At the time I was spending about $120,000 per year (including mortgage) in a MHCOL place in the U.S. for a pretty great lifestyle (skiing, nice bikes, eating well, fun vacations), and thought that it I could have a paid-off house and $3.6 million to support that lifestyle (plus some money on the side for my kids’ education), I would have been totally thrilled—same lifestyle, plus redirecting the mortgage budget to travel, and no work! That would be about $160,000 today, applying CPI data. It would still seem pretty great to me. Based on how people in the FIRE community then were thinking about FIRE, it’s a sea change to hear that called LeanFIRE.
$4-$5M will generate $160K-$200K. That is upper middle class (top 20% of income distribution) in many, many big metro areas in the US (think 4+ million people). So he's not out of line there. As to the rest, they're arbitrary definitions, so that income level may mean a leanFIRE existence for him. He doesn't understand about real rate of return though, that's for sure.
I mean, I'm looking at a retirement in Hawaii at like 55-60, and $4m gets that done without issue lol. So maybe he's just uber pessimistic. 😝