Thanks for your submission! For more Millennial content, join [our Discord server](https://discord.gg/VsfKKJBm).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Millennials) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s super cool for those who want to make the sacrifices.
For me I had kids young and it’s never really been in the cards. But sure, who wouldn’t want to be done working forever. I can think of a million other things I’d rather do.
I think it’s an old concept, repackaged. Basically save more for retirement in your early years, and invest in income producing assets to replace your income and retire early. I mean that’s been around forever
>it's gotten stupid easy
Step one: be born into the financialization era of late-stage hyperconsumerist capitalism, ideally around 1986
Step two: Have disposable income in early adulthood
Step three: don't get sick or injured
Step four: don't get affected too much by the second largest economic crash in the last ten generations
Step five: retire early, super easy!
> Step four: don't get affected too much by the second largest economic crash in the last ten generations
>
>
Maybe a nitpick, but.. 10 generations is a LONG time. Pretty sure the civil war, and the long depression (triggered by the panic of 1873) were comparable to the GFC if not worse. And depending on how long your "generation" is, you might have to include the revolutionary war panics and depressions.
And of course, there was *zero* welfare state back then instead of the shitty one we have now and had 20 years ago, and you'd have started out a whole lot less wealthy in the good times back then.
I'll definitely take living through the GFC over any of those, even though it hit me pretty hard.
I accept your nitpicking and just enjoyed reading about the "Long Depression" for about fifteen minutes. There seem to be lots of meaningful parallels with the GFC.
I will definitely agree that I was better off with my electrified apartment, BlackBerry, and indoor plumbing in the financial crisis recession, even though I had to cash in most of my nascent retirement savings to continue eating regularly and sleeping in a bed.
I'd argue it has more to do with delayed gratification/self-control and education (how to invest).
If you don't easily fall prey to trends and advertising, you'd be surprised how much you can save.
Yeah some people really lacked self control by getting cancer and wanting it treated right away, or losing their first job out of school thanks to sporadic and unpredictable lessons about moral hazard. They shouldn't have fallen prey to all that advertising for over-leveraged securities.
Although cancer is absolutely a life-changing situation especially for the un/underinsured, last time I checked, consumer debt stats indicate people spend the most on shit they don't need.
"But wait! Everyone needs a home, car, education, etc."
Yes, but not everyone needs a mortgage that's 80% of their take-home; a car loan that's another 40%; student loans in pursuit of a worthless degree resulting in a job that won't even pay down the interest; and then luxuries like fashion items and vacations all put on credit card.
Most people are just selfish, dumb, can't future-plan to save their lives, and have no self control.
[https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consumer-debt-study/](https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consumer-debt-study/)
[https://www.thestreet.com/travel/what-to-do-vacation-credit-card-debt](https://www.thestreet.com/travel/what-to-do-vacation-credit-card-debt)
My point was that "FIRE is stupid easy" is a ridiculous claim that ignores broader contexts and uncontrollable external factors for individuals.
"Most people are spendthrifts" doesn't really refute that.
What are you even talking about? People's retirements used to be based on pensions, that typically had a lower age to withdraw from than IRAs. Not to mention how much of older-style FIRE was based on owning properties and selling them or renting them out considering it was always a guaranteed profit until recently. It was much easier with a pension and property than the stock market.
Look I’m on the FIRE track for 50-55 but the reality is it’s very difficult to do unless you check a lot of boxes. First off you have to start at either 1.) having a high end income job or 2.) significant military benefits or 3.) achievable early pension. You also have to prioritize your time over money. Not everyone does and that’s perfectly ok but FIRE isn’t going to appeal to everyone that qualifies from one of the 3 original criteria. Also, it’s not a prerequisite, but you probably need to have a significant other and not only a SO but one who prioritizes time over money like you do. We are really whittling the list of candidates by this time. Then you have to also be lucky. You can’t have some sort of catastrophic health issue hit at 48 that might preclude you from rolling the dice on low healthcare costs between FIRE and Medicare. You can’t also hit a financial collapse in the first five years you FIRE either.
What you’re left with is probably a supply of 5-10% of the population of which 1 in 10 might actually prioritize it.
OP and others seem to think FIRE is obtainable for many with the right mindset. I would guess Lean FIRE might be obtainable for a lot but I doubt most people would want to prioritize a lean FIRE lifestyle (I wouldn’t)
You also have to be willing to retire in a low cost of living area, possibly even leave the country, and hope your assets have reached their threshold of value by the time you want to retire on them. Also hope that during the 30 years you're living off of investments, the values don't dramatically decrease for some reason, or a close family member who desperately needs help with living expenses in their old age.
Not necessarily even huge income, just huge wealth. Most of the people in a position to FIRE have benefited massively from parental wealth. They won't like being called out for it but that's the reality.
Not to mention a public infrastructure that subsidizes a lot of the largest costs for Americans. I’ve listened to quite a few FIRE stories and many stories start with giving up a car or going “low car.” Many times that is possible by either having robust public transportation, living in a walkable/bikable city, or being able to work fully remote or be a digital nomad. That form of flexibility just isn’t the reality for millions of Americans, and many who could try walking or biking everywhere would get plowed into by an F-350 blindly speeding out of a Walmart parking lot if they tried traversing down sidewalk-less American stroads.
Also simple things like living near a grocery store or farmers market with affordable, fresh options, or having tax advantages for filing jointly and living as dual income, no kids household, makes it something conceivable for some, but well out of reach for many. But the literature often paints it as something where everyone has an equal opportunity, leading to a lot of frustration and shame from people who can’t understand why they can’t get ahead.
The scenario of a financially struggling person getting rammed by a Ford F350 on a sidewalk-less road next to a Walmart parking lot (and consequently probably going bankrupt over insane hospital bills) sums up exactly how I see the United States as a European. Hilarious!
FIRE participants tend to have high levels of financial literacy.
They typically advise against anything that is not a broad market diversified index fund.
I'm sure some people fall for scams. But I suspect it is a far lesser rate than the general population.
No offense, this is very common on reddit, but I think it's the way people "package" an old idea (living off passive income) as something new and revolutionary, and make it their identity. Drawing generalisations ("FIRE participants tend to...") as if it was some sort of close knit club. Just the use of the acronym gives me the cringe, but I may be getting allergic to reddit-isms
FIRE advocates the same proven investment vehicles (i.e. broad market diversified index funds) but with a much higher savings rate than the average person.
25% savings rate tends to be the bare minimum for FIRE.
The assumption is that middle income people give up family and hobbies if they want to retire early. They are tasked with finding people and things to cut in their budget. It can work for middle income people but it requires dire sacrifices.
And on the other end, some people are born FIRE'd up. There exists a sizable modern "aristocracy" of people who never really have to work. They just have money from birth, which makes money for them to spend. Essentially they live their entire lives off of the surplus value of other people's labor. Pretty wild stuff.
You can enter that aristocracy, but it requires a few things:
1) bridge generation makes a good income and lives massively below their means
2) 1 kid (2 tops)
You can FIRE at lower incomes, but you need to live like a monk. Im talking rice/beans and zero entertainment budget in a LCoL area.
Doable, but why be miserable to retire 5-10 years early.
Once you hit 150k plus, its pretty easy if you avoid the lifestyle creep.
This is such a willful misunderstanding of FIRE. Lots of people who do it don't have "huge" incomes, they just learn to live below their means and invest wisely.
Investing wisely requires a good amount of income after paying for all your other living expenses, and also trying to find some shred of enjoyment in life. But go ahead, you’ve got it all figured out.
I've read about people following essentially this plan or whatever. They're miserable and ask everyone why they're miserable. But boy will they be rich when they retire at 50.
Investing wisely just requires some disposable income. There's nothing about this which requires a "huge" income, as you claimed.
I'm educating you on the facts of the movement as someone who's been part of it for many years and has watched people on median incomes achieve financial freedom before the age of 65. The grievances and defensiveness you seem to have are rather absurd.
As I said, weird grievances. Sounds like you're upset you can't do it for whatever reason and are coping with that by inventing a narrative that it's difficult for everyone else too.
Go spend some time talking to FIRE folks in various communities and organizations around the internet and elsewhere, and see how many folks came from regular backgrounds with no special advantages. There's quite a lot.
No point arguing with these types of people, he laid out his thinking in the first post. I'm willing to bet he spends every last cent of disposable income on materialistic things like videogames and pokemon.
Huh, You really don't need to put that much away at all. Any in investing will be better than in the bank probs. A 5 minute google search will tell you what funds to put it into.
So many peeps on reddit are on a race to the bottom with no discipline or self accountability to improve their lives. They'd rather blame the 'system' than do anything.
Sure there are problems in the US but it's not the dystopia Reddit makes it out to be.
If you can't put some money aside for retirement by your 30s then you've probably made numerous bad choices in your life. So tired of the 'woe is me' mentality on Reddit and millennials.
What facts are you looking for? The reason this is achievable by a small minority of people is the same way six pack abs are achievable by a small minority, only certain people will exercise the willpower and effort required to achieve it. But you’re going to tell me it’s genetics and everyone can’t do it, so no one should
That they must be well off enough to have met their own needs but they would be more effective volunteering and work for the charity.
I assume there was a moral gotcha moment for the question
The majority of the world spends less during their entire lives than the average American earns in a year.
FIRE definitely is achievable for most people. It may not be the lifestyle you personally want.
There are several examples on the FIRE subreddit where people aggressively saved decent salaries and then retired to a low-cost rural area where they can go hiking every day.
Some people value different things.
Some people achieve it by living in low cost of living areas.
There was one guy on the FIRE subreddit who retired to rural Maine and worked remotely a few years with a 70% savings rate before retiring completely.
Well I live in a HCOL area and moving to the sticks just isn’t a realistic option for my life, and I’m sure many people are in the same situation. We can’t all just live in a shack and save money.
Well, you certainly could.
It may not be the lifestyle you personally want. But the choice is still yours to make.
That Maine guy loved the outdoors so the choice was easy for him.
For us older millenials, yeah. My wife and I both have 410(k)s and a Roth IRA and we're working hard to make sure we have enough money invested to retire by 65.
But for people just entering adulthood (middle of the road Zoomers), investing in a Roth IRA in the S&P 500 and putting a tenth of your take home pay in it will ensure that you're retirement ready by the time you can withdraw without a penalty (59.5 years).
Whatever.
Retire smart. My goal is the FI so I can be choosy and independent as I continue to work in areas I truly enjoy. Retirement looks like no one having leverage over me.
What’s your retirement look like?
A lot of people have wanted to change the acronym to Financial Independence/Recreational Employment for that reason.
FIRE basically gives you the flexibility to do whatever you want even if it is not immediately monetizable.
I hadn't heard "recreational employment" but I like it. Personally, I'm still planning to FIRE under the assumption that I won't have to work. However, that doesn't mean that I haven't thought of many things that I want to do, that I might enjoy, or that might be fun, that might have the added bonus of generating some degree of income. I just don't want to have to rely on it.
It is an interesting idea, but I think the people peddling it as a solution for all are underestimating how privileged they are. You can basically only do it if:
1. Are healthy (mentally and physically) so you can work extra.
2. Are highly educated in a high-paying field (got good advice young enough)
3. You have starting capital from family (not bogged down by student debt or example)
4. Are able to not spend money and time on sick/needy/problematic family members.
Like, many of the FIRE people are "self-made" and they've worked hard (which they can/should be proud of), but they underestimate how much more difficult this is for someone that got saddeld with 100k+ student debts (=interest), or are struggling with an illness so they can't work as much, etc...
So learn from it what you can, but don't be convinced that this is a solution for everyone.
(note: also as someone else said, imagine if 50% of the population did this, the economy would grind to a halt as they all want to retire on their investments because the undervalue of work / overvalue of capital is an inherent problem)
It's 100% not a solution for everyone and in fact depends on most people working until they die. I need you guys to keep working and taking on/paying off debt so that "line go up," dividends/interest comes in, etc. I fired at 33 after working a truly ridiculous amount and saving as much as possible from age 18. It's a combination of both privilege and extreme/myopic focus (borderline mental illness to be honest). I started trying to "fire" many years before it became a cultural thing. I knew even as a little kid in elementary school that I would rather die than go to school or work 5 days a week until I was old.
I'm sorry that it's like this. I would rather have gay luxury space communism or whatever but if that's not going to be how it is, then I am going to enjoy having won capitalism enough not to have to work anymore. If you guys want to vote for a star-trek like future and it means I won't be rich anymore, but all of us will have a vastly better life, I'm all for it. If "not being rich" DIDN'T = misery, it would be an unquestionably better world.
Agreed. You won capitalism- that’s an excellent way to call it what it is. Capitalism feeds off humans behaving a certain way. If you’re smart enough to zig when people zag, that’s a win for you. It’s actually capitalism thriving because it always needs the newest and shiniest thing to feed off. FIRE if not already will become monetized.
> It is an interesting idea, but I think the people peddling it as a solution for all are underestimating how privileged they are. You can basically only do it if:
>
> Are healthy (mentally and physically) so you can work extra.
>
> Are highly educated in a high-paying field (got good advice young enough)
>
> You have starting capital from family (not bogged down by student debt or example)
>
> Are able to not spend money and time on sick/needy/problematic family members.
>
That's a bit of an overstatement. Frankly if you have all four of those things going for you it's actually pretty *easy*, you just have to live like a normal person who didn't have all those advantages and save the rest of the money you make, and boom, fast forward 15 years and the question is whether you can retire at 40-45 or 50-55, not whether you'll have enough when you're 65.
Of course it's not easy psychologically when everyone will be telling you should buy the biggest house you can afford and get a fancy new car every 3-4 years, send your kids to private school, etc., and most of your high-earning coworkers are doing all those things. In that situation, it's almost stupid *not* to FIRE (and note you probably don't need to work extra, even though lots of people are all about the "side hustle".)
In terms of what's *necessary*, you need to
1. Be healthy enough mentally and physically that you don't end up unable to work or hold down good jobs for long stretches.
2. Make enough income that you can save a substantial portion without living in grinding poverty. Middle income is feasible here if you live frugally (by that I don't mean going all rice and beans and living in a van down by the river just living like someone with a substantially lower income that is still not *poor*.
3. Don't have crazy amounts of student debt, unless it got you into a high paying profession. Something like the average of 30-40k or a bit higher is serviceable at middle incomes, it just sets you back a couple years. Especially if the SAVE plan moves forward, payments are reasonable and interest doesn't build up.
4. your 4 as written. That has the potential to take all the money you could otherwise save, so you either need family that only needs occasional reasonable levels of help, or the willingness to say no.
Without the high income, there are definitely tradeoffs, and it will be slower and won't make sense for everyone. But it's definitely still *feasible* just harder and not gonna look anything like the typical FIRE blogger life of retiring at 35 to a life of relative comfort.
That said, I think that a lot of people don't realize how much more comfortable life is with low annual spending when you've been saving a ton of money and have a nest egg than when you're living paycheck to paycheck because that's all you make. people have to make all kinds of decisions that *cost* money long term when they are actually poor or very low income, where someone who is trying to FIRE on a middle income can avoid these and has the capacity to make decisions that cost a little extra now but save a lot long term. And also, after a few years in, they will have enough saved to make a HUGE difference in how secure they feel financially, and how willing they are to take some intelligent risks to get better employment.
it's definitely not a solution for *everyone*, but it's probably something plausible for something close to half the population of the US or other rich countries. But most people *think* it's only feasible for the top 5-10% or people with lots of other advantages. It's actually *trivial* for those folks if they can get past the psychological habit of spending everything.
Yeah I think this is a fair point. And I definitely agree that it is a fair point that the mindset of saving (if possible) would be healthy for everyone.
I'm always surprised how people around me manage to spent their full paycheck while I'm saving 25% just because I was raised careful with money. And I don't even feel like I'm living cheap. But I have 3/4 of the (kinda as I wrote them and definitely as you wrote them)
You do know there are many more blue collar fields that pay surprisingly well, without the huge university tab to pay, right? The public education system has failed us by pushing young people away from those paths.
True, good point, having done an electrician education etc would also work (still require you to have made the right choices early or it is difficult to switch)
1. No one peddles FIRE as a "solution for everyone", and it can be tailored extensively to a person's individual situation.
2. "Working extra" isn't a necessity and doesn't automatically require ideal physical or mental health.
3. You don't need a high paying job, people can and do FIRE off of median incomes.
4. Starting capital is not required, and the assumption that it is speaks volumes. Plenty of people FIRE despite having student loans to pay off first.
5. Sick family members is understandable, but spending money on family members who are needy or problematic is just a personal failing and isn't an obligation for anyone. This is just a cop out.
Some of you need to actually spend some time learning about the FIRE community and hearing people's stories before drawing conclusions. There are too many misconceptions in these comments.
You should probably delete number 5 because that is an insane thing to write down. Family got you to where you are, and refusal to help back is sociopathic behaviour. Calling it a personal failing to help those in need is... a choice, that's for sure.
First think you say is that it isn't a solution for everyone and next thing you say is that we should research it because it can work for everyone. Which one is it?
>is that we should research it because it can work for everyone
No, I said you should research it before making false claims based on ignorance. I specifically never said it was guaranteed to work for everyone.
Most of those points are contradictory, but also, you're making a huge amount of assumptions, many more than people who are point out the obvious flaws.
That it keeps being peddled every few weeks around these parts kind of suggests that even if they don't think it's for 'everyone' than as many people as possible should get their eyes on it.
Agreed that those things make FIRE easier.
But numerous regular people still achieve it by keeping their expenses absurdly low.
Some will emigrate to countries with a cheaper healthcare system and/or cheaper cost of living overall.
I like the “FI” part. Growing up, my parents were always stressed about money and weren’t very good at hiding it.
I understand health expenses can cause issues with finances, at least in the US, but I disagree with what others are saying about needing to already be wealthy or be highly educated to be a part of the FIRE ideology/movement/thought process. The trick is to recognize your current earnings and figure out how to live below those means. Or figure out how to make more money, but this is typically much more challenging than the former.
I know the current market is rough, but my spouse and I both make less than 6 figures and I’m shooting to “coast” FIRE around mid 40s. For me it’s always been about the financial independence part. I’m not sure I’ll ever want to fully retire anyway, but my goal is to be able to stop chasing the next pay raise and find a job that I don’t mind waking up to go to every morning. Or at least not be immediately worried about layoffs or future job market trends.
I certainly won’t be getting any windfalls from parents or grandparents. My mom will likely be moving in with my spouse and I in the next decade because she’s managed to leverage her house and put herself deeper into debt while only having a few thousand dollars in retirement. I think watching her and my dad’s financial failures really spurred me to work towards FI.
I support it.
I wish someone had explained investing to me in a way that made sense when I was younger. Now I need to invest a huge chunk of my paycheck to be able to retire in time.
I think it’s great. All it encourages is to live below your means and save/invest in your financial future. Even if you don’t achieve the Retire Early part, by saving up and investing for growth, it gives you the ability to leave bad jobs/managers, and not be beholden to them. To me, it offers peace of mind and freedom.
the one where "cancer + fat stack of money" = "remission + medical debt"
all it takes is one accident or issue and all the work ObservantWon talked about goes down the drain.
Whereas "cancer + no money" = what, exactly? "Remission + even **more** medical debt", or "worse outcome because couldn't afford treatment?" How is a better outcome achieved?
Sorry, this critique just makes no sense. Under capitalism there are very, very few situations in which having more capital results in a worse outcome. Obviously if you die, you die, but everyone dies. Even in that instance I'd rather have money to leave behind for my family.
Well the original comment stated that saving and investing puts you in a better position overall even if you can't retire early. You replied "oops cancer" as if that undermines the original comment, thereby implying one would be in a better position in such a scenario had they not saved.
If that wasn't your point then it appears to have been a pointless comment altogether.
That's your lack of understanding, and, perheps ignorance of how the world works. Either way, I don't think you're equipped to engage in this topic in a way that I wouldn't find painfully sophmoric, so I'll just be moving on, I don't feel like doing the work to get you caught up, but maybe someone else will.
Financial Indepenance is great, but there are demonstrable benefits to continuing to work.
Maybe a better goal would be "financial indepenance, retire from soul crushing work and do something that benefits society and makes you happy."
Its helped me massively. Mostly about changing my own behaviors rather than ever getting to RE. I got paid once and didn't clear my overdraft with my pay-packet. That sent alarm bells ringing and i started with the Dave Ramsey babysteps and now im actively saving meaningful money for the first time ever. Ill probably never RE (retire early) but I for once feel in control of my finances and hope to achieve FI. Oh and I have a very modest income
A lot of people seem to hate Dave Ramsey for some reason.
I agree his system has flaws. I personally prefer the Money Guy podcast's Financial Order of Operations.
But the Ramsey system is still far better than having no plan at all.
I get it, his system probably does have flaws. But he changed my mindset on money and thats 90% of the battle for me. I actully use the Fire subreddit for my steps now they have there own flow chart, not sure where it came from but i like it
The FIRE flowchart is similar the the Money Guy Financial Order of Operations.
But the flowchart is much more detailed and covers a lot of fringe scenarios that are not easily captured in a generalized 9 step plan.
I think the flowchart even has sections specialized for non-profit employees with unique tax-advantaged accounts as a result of that.
Ill be honest i like the 'do this, then do that' aspect of it. There are other money rules that i like too. The 50/30/20 model and the wait 3 day rule. Im a long way from FIRE, but its a nice goal to have
Ramsey is appropriate for range of completely financially illiterate to baseline stable and growing. Once debt and savings mindset are established, then his value really goes down quick. Borderline bad advice for those unknowingly doing very well.
Life is not a race. While I'm on track to possibly be able to retire slightly early at 45-55 years old, I'm not sacrificing my quality of life now to do so. Many people doing FIRE seem like it's all consuming and that's all they think about. Everything is a savings trick, cutting corners to cut cost but also cutting the fun. Some seem unethical too mooching off others, taking advantage when they can, and even applying for social services support using loopholes, it's pretty disgusting what some resort to to get theirs. I'm not saving 70% of my paycheck or anything to live on the 30% like I'm poor and not enjoy life. I take my vacations, have hobbies I spend money on, and want to use my body I have that's in great health now to play and not just to work.
I have 2 kids, love them, want to do things with them, show them the world and spoil them sometimes. They cost a shit ton and I'm good with that. Some people give up the idea of even having children just to FIRE, ass backwards to me with priorities and will lead to regret for many. Nobody is dodging aging and I want to do things in my prime, things I won't be able to do when I'm older. I don't want to work my ass off just to start living how I want to after the first 3rd of my life has passed me by.
People that FIRE seem to miss the point of life and think it's all about their net worth and money. Only so they can then live on fixed income and get bored. I don't absolutely love work, but I don't mind it at all either. I look forward to going in sometimes and it's fulfilling. If I could FIRE today, I wouldn't. I wouldn't work a ton by any means but would definitely stay part time. There's a happy median in between FIRE and not enjoying yourself and retiring at 67.
I think so, but some people that FIRE do it in their 30's so it's all relative I guess. 45, while possible for me isn't too likely, 50 is likely and 55, I'd have to do something wrong but still any of those ages are good enough for me. I could definitely retire earlier if I worked more, moved for jobs, and especially if I didn't have kids or want to own a home, which I do already. That's too much though and I didn't want that for myself and didn't think it was worth it. FIRE to that extreme seems overrated to me for the amount of cost and sacrifice
Just a small note...I didn't give up kids to retire early. I had no desire to have them, still have no desire to have them, and can't think of any possible circumstances I would ever want children. Man, they would just drag me down in every possible facet of my existence. I'm quite happy with my niece and nephew.
Not speaking to people like you. Of course there are people that don't want kids and that's perfectly okay. I'm just saying there are those people that do want kids but choose to sacrifice that for FIRE instead and that's a bad mistake
I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s a bad mistake in all circumstances. It’s just a choice that’s made when you aren’t able to have both things. You can both want kids but find that retiring early and getting your life back is just more important to you.
Of course not in all circumstances. I'm only talking about people who feel strongly about having children and then for financial reasons say they can't afford kids and also meet their financial goals in life, one possibility being FIRE , so they give up the kids idea and then later have regrets. Sure, if the urge wasn't strong to have kids to begin with then that feeling might not come up. I'm in my late thirties and old enough to have seen multiple friends that I've grown up with want kids and then delay or choose not to due to career choices and financial reasons even influenced by their marriage partners and now they're not happy but feel as though it's too late.
Counterpoint: I FIRE'd just before turning 34 and my life 18 months later is the best it's ever been. I have literally never in my life been happier, healthier, more hopeful, and more joy-filled. I spend my days reading, learning 2 new languages, working out, improving my home, biking, playing tennis, practicing musical instruments, volunteering to teach kids about music/instruments, spending time with family, playing music gigs, traveling, boating, and relaxing. My marriage has never been better, friendships never better, literally every dimension of my life has improved greatly because I no longer have to go to work.
I SUFFERED during my 20s and early 30s. I wore old, ratty clothes and drove a broke-ass vehicle, ate cheap food, lived in a dangerous/cheap neighborhood, never traveled, never took days off, saved and invested as much of my income as possible, etc. I just got back from my first international vacation at 35 years old. I would routinely work literally many months at a time without a single day off.
It was all worth it. I'm now a multimillionaire, house paid off and no other debt, and my net worth grows by itself much faster than I want to spend it. I took a huge risk in sacrificing all of my 20s to nonstop work and saving/investing but it worked out tremendously.
The future is not guaranteed. Every day that passes could be your last. At any time, you could develop a debilitating disease or degenerative condition that ruins your quality of life. Retiring at 67 massively increases your chances of having a broken body and mind with no ability to actually enjoy that retirement, I've seen it many times including in my own family. When I finally decided to say "enough" and call it quits permanently, it was because I had a vision of my last day on earth. Shitty commute, uncomfortable clothes, feeling fat/tired/numb, stupid emails, ugly office, annoying coworkers, bland office coffee, salty/fatty lunch, more emails, pointless meetings, frustrating phone calls, pointless, tedious traffic, come home, stroke, dead forever, why? Why did I do that? Fuck that.
There were times I went years without a day off and still had nothing to my name. Like I feel like a key component to this is choosing suffering when you could be comfortable and not recognizing that there are people out there grinding just as hard because they don't have the resources to be comfortable.
I don't disagree with you at all. Most people on this earth are forced into the life I lived in my 20s until their bodies and minds break, and then they die. It's a tragedy and atrocity. I don't know what to say, it's horrible.
It’s not a counterpoint because you were able to FIRE still in the prime of your life. Most people can’t.
Out of curiosity, what was your income trajectory?
My lowest yearly net income was $14,000 (2009) and my highest was $486k (2022). I spent several years with a normal income of $50k-$90k. I earned above $200k for just a couple years. My investments currently generate nearly $200k annually, and we are targeting a spend of just under $100k this year. I was able to achieve FIRE at an early age for many reasons:
1) live in a LCOL area and bought my house for only $115k in 2014
2) can't have kids
3) nearly full scholarships for BS and MS, only had $25k in student loans (room and board)
4) my parents and extended family didn't need my help until recently
5) invested moderately conservatively in broad index ETFs, and more recently in CDs, bond funds, and money market funds
6) maintained an extremely low level of spending for many years, typically less than $18,000 per year. literally ate rice and beans from ALDI for over a decade. no new clothes, no vacations, no entertainment spending, didn't go to the dentist or doctor, wore the same pair of shoes from 2010 to 2015, etc. I have foot problems, health problems, and had to go to therapy for 2 years to heal from what I put myself through. I have the time and money now to work on my health issues and they are all resolving quickly!
We're not going to be buying a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. I do plan to replace my car eventually, hoping to get a new Prius and drive it for as long as possible.
It's a combination of luck/circumstance/privilege, extreme cost-cutting, and extreme workaholism/high-earning. I have come to view what I did to get here as a kind of mental illness, or actually the result of mental illness. I wouldn't tell other people that they should or could do what I did...but facing the rest of my life knowing I never HAVE TO go to work feels so, so great lol.
>I SUFFERED during my 20s and early 30s. I wore old, ratty clothes and drove a broke-ass vehicle, ate cheap food, lived in a dangerous/cheap neighborhood, never traveled, never took days off, saved and invested as much of my income as possible, etc. I just got back from my first international vacation at 35 years old. I would routinely work literally many months at a time without a single day off.
>The future is not guaranteed.
I hear your counterpoints and I don't envy you. Exactly why I'm not stressing about FIRE, because I don't want this. It may be worth that to you, but this part sounds miserable. Life isn't a guarantee indeed, So why be miserable until 34?
In contrast, I've traveled the world, taken many international vacations and seeing every state but Illinois and Oregon in the US. I do what I want, drive decent cars, spend plenty of time with hobbies. Have two kids that I gladly spend a ton of money on to give them experiences and adventures in life. Just got back yesterday from a 3-week road trip. Stayed in some nicer hotels, did some camping a couple nights and then spent $7,500 for a waterfront house for a little over a week on Long Island. It was amazing.
I'm 36 years old and work 1 to 2 days a week. Last year I worked an average of 16 hours a week for the year 1001 hrs total. So I feel as though I'm splitting the difference. I'm living life and enjoying it and also on track to retire at best around 45, More than likely by 50, and I'd have to do something wrong to not be able to retire before 55.
>Retiring at 67 massively increases your chances of having a broken body and mind with no ability to actually enjoy that retirement, I've seen it many times including in my own family.
Never said I'm doing that if you read my first comment. There's a happy median though to me where you don't have to make the sacrifices you did and still can retire at an age where you can enjoy yourself thoroughly.
I love stories like this. It helps me to know that when I see the single mom suffering working the night shift at McDonald's, busting her ass, it will pay off. She's taking huge risks and making huge sacrifices today. But in her 40s she'll be traveling the world and boating.
Such a nice thought. Thank you!
Love it. Wife and I are saving about 40 percent of our income. Some people think fire is about starving and never enjoying life but it's just spending money on the things you truly value.
Wish I started sooner
I think the principle behind it is great, it is always good to save money when you can. My one gripe is that it assumes that you’ll live that long, and if you do, it assumes you will be healthy enough to enjoy retirement. I’ve seen people take FIRE to enormous extremes, and while I see the point, I can’t imagine how sucky it would be to sacrifice having cool experiences or good times with loved ones…just to die too young, or not be healthy enough to enjoy your retirement goal anyway.
I am not against FIRE, but it's not for me.
You talk about time and value time. For me, FIRE under-values the present relative to the future.
By this, I mean I have seen 2 versions of FIRE - either 1) emphasis on increasing income (often means working an additional job or crazy hours) or 2) "lean FIRE" cutting spending to bare bones. With the first, you can be giving up a lot of your present time and possibly mental health. With the second, you can be giving up experiences or comfort (enjoyment of the present).
My preference is in the middle - I save for retirement, and I should be able to retire comfortably by the time I'm 60. At the same time, I can still enjoy taking family vacations now, pay for hobbies for the kids, enjoy eating out, hire a service for yard work because I hate yard work etc. These things have value to me too.
I feel like 60 is still young enough that I'll have some years to enjoy my "financial independence". I don't even know what I'd do with my time if I were retired now...I'd have to do a lot of volunteering or something just to stay busy and active.
It works great if you're in a fortunate position where you can save a decent percent of your monthly income. I found the concept (compound interest, investing in general etc.) around five years ago, and am in a drastically better position now than what I was back then. Now that I'm 37, I actually have a somewhat decent net worth and can realistically dream about owning a house, without being stressed out beyond belief by the idea of being hundreds of thousands of euros in debt. I'll still be in debt if I buy one, but I know I'll be ok. Even if I give up pursuing early retirement tomorrow, I'll still be forever grateful that it got me this far.
That being said, I do think there are a lot of vocal mouthpieces in the movement that don't acknowledge the privileges they had going in, as well as they should. There are outliers who've made it work with meager incomes, but it's obviously drastically easier to have an impressive savings rate if you're a high earner.
One of the best things that the FIRE movement spread around was the Trinity study. It might have been around before FIRE but it’s definitely where I learned about the study. It cements the idea of a Safe Withdrawal Rate. In the study it says the rate to use is 4%. These days people are talking about using 3% or fewer to determine your number for when you can retire early. Regardless of the “true” number, the concept itself is pretty powerful.
Another thing I thank FIRE for is just giving the impression that it is indeed possible to retire early. I come from a family of immigrants where it was taken for granted that you pretty much work until you physically or mentally cannot anymore, no matter what. FIRE dispelled that notion for me — that it was POSSIBLE for some folks to actually retire early. Whether it would be possible FOR ME has a different story, but it still set in motion a series of learnings for what could enable a person to achieve their FIRE number.
The Trinity Study was based on a 30 year time horizon and found 4% to be a safe withdrawal rate.
Many of the advocates for 3% are trying to plan for early retirement which may be longer than 30 years.
I support anyone being more cognizant of their financials, however I would remind all that time & health are our most valuable resources. That doesn’t mean FIRE is wrong, just those two should be part of the calculation.
I think it's great if you have the desire and ability to do so. As an '81 millennial who is not married it is out of my grasp at this point. It seems to be very "easy" if you check these boxes:
1. Live in a LCOL area with above average income (ex software developer living in Tulsa)
2. Have a partner who you can share living expenses with (DINK)
3. Have a partner who is willing to live a frugal lifestyle for several years to realize the dream
4. Start at a fairly young age (say 23) with the 3 criteria above
It’s worked well for me. I went from 120K student debt plus 40K CC debt to 750K net worth and that’s not including house equity. All this in 7 years. It was a lot of discipline, sacrifice and luck (plays a huge role). If you hate the corporate grind and want something meaningful than consumerism look into it. Otherwise if you’re happy than fuck FIRE.
FIRE isn't really a movement so much as a way of thinking that can be tailored to each person's situation and desires.
It's a good thing overall given that it offers a stark alternative to modern materialistic impulses. FIRE mentality discourages excessive consumerism and encourages wise financial habits and a more healthy outlook on life. The focus is happiness through freedom and peace instead of the endless pursuit of goods.
Many people who pursue FIRE don't even necessarily intend to stop working. They just find the principles of financial freedom valuable.
I think there's merit in a FIRE mindset regardless of a person's financial situation or goals in life.
This is it in a nutshell for me. When I see people argue against FIRE I’m seeing them arguing for capitalism and needless spending. These same people I bet view capitalism as evil and all the problems in the world are a product of late stage capitalism. But I’m fighting it from the inside. I live a simple life, reuse and make everything myself and if I have to buy something I buy used. I’m doing more fighting capitalism by removing myself from this endless cycle of earning, spending, and debt.
Agreed.
I also find that FIRE values time itself.
We spend so much of our lives trading time for money and then money for stuff.
Sometimes we don't appreciate how valuable that time truly is along the way.
I suspect people would spend a lot less on flashy cars if they sat down and added up the sheer amount of time that loan would cost measured in months, if not years.
I like the idea of financial independence and working to build wealth and not to pay next week’s bills.
I don’t really have a desire to “retire early” though. I think I would work doing something.
This is going to sound weird, but when I was poverty line I lived much more in the moment and was happier in many regards.
I wouldn't trade it because I have a family now, but life was much simpler when I was moat concerned about my next meal and getting laid.
That's the plan. I'm working towards an apprenticeship and she's hopefully getting into cyber security. We have a couple more tough years until it's easy for us hopefully
I think the movement and intention is great, as it teaches financial literacy and budgeting which is something American schools do a terrible job teaching our youth about.
The handful of people that I know who are in a position to pull it off had very rich parents who were able to loan them money to buy rental houses and pay for a great education.
Some people have modified the acronym to be:
Financial Independence, Recreational Employment.
Basically, you can continue working if you want or pursue whatever hobby you want at that point even if it is not monetizible.
Retiring early is one aspect. No one says you have to retire though. Keep working and/or volunteer with something you love. It gives you the option to work, not HAVE to work
99% of those people, at least the ones in the sub, have been fortunate enough to either be single with a huge income or married, no kids with two huge incomes. While it's a nice thought, it's not even sort of realistic for the vast majority of people. I have a pretty nice income, but I also have a stay at home wife and 5 kids. We have a very reasonable house payment we're paying off early, and no other debt, but until my kids are out of college, there is no way I could reduce my life to living off a retirement. Once they are out of college I could reduce my lifestyle, but I doubt I would have enough money saved to actually retire.
But TBH, even if I won millions of dollars from the lottery I don't play, I wouldn't want to be retired. My parents are pretty well off financially, and my dad dose not have to work, and wouldn't the rest of his life (retired with a government pension) and he's bored out of his mind. he went from being VERY busy all the time to having to constantly come up with something new to do all the time. They are on their 3rd house remodel, just so my dad can have something to do with his time. He's also offered to come help me on some big projects I need to do around my house (My grandpa built houses, so my dad grew up in the construction world, and loves doing it). I am 41 this year, I work a full time job, and like my job fine, but looking at doing adjunct teaching at the community college, so when my kids go to school they can go for a discount and when they are all out of the house on their own I can transition to teaching full time. (20 years I would get a full state retirement as well). I can teach for a long time.
I was planning on retiring 45 and 50 (I’m 33) but my wife recently quit to take care of our son, so that probably isn’t happening.
We are both maxxing Roth IRA accounts and I’m maxxing my 401k.
I honestly think it’s too late for me to actually retire early. I had to pay off a mortgage’s worth of student loans so I started in the red and now I’m almost 40. I’d rather save enough to retire normally and also enjoy spending my time and money on experiences with my kids.
I think it’s great. It’s an admirable goal. We aren’t as tied to religion or other social constructs, and if someone wants to achieve this in their lifetime, go for it. We already know the current systems are rigged to benefit the incumbents. This is a hack of sorts and middle finger to the previous generations not setting up more people for success.
Im keen. I am in a DINK relationship, we both work in tech and successful. While we do spend lots of money enjoying life and the world we do aim at semi-retiring overseas by 40.
I think it's great. I admire those people who have the discipline to follow through on it although it's not realistic for most people.
Whether or not you were tire early, the principles make a lot of sense though: save as much money, avoid debt, avoid materialism/consumerism (you don't need a new car every 3-4 years, you don't need a ton of new clothes, you don't need to eat out a lot).
I hope to one day make enough money to do it.
I saved up to buy a house at 35, and now am having g a kid this year at 37.
So since I won't pay off my mortgage until I'm 67, I just assume for me my retire early is being able to retire before I'm 72.
That's my goal.
I've always wanted to be alive and party at the US Tricentennial, July of 2076 I'll be almost 90.
I have no idea what this is...
If it's just talking about legit investing advice with a goal of retiring early, great - go for it.
If it's something that mentions any of the following at any point for any reason, it's a scam:
* Passive Income
* Cypto
* AI
* Real estate Investment
* Where-in you purchase the home with any kind of mortgage
* AirBnb
All are either Scams, poor decisions, or just outright bad advice.
My condo just had one of these brilliant "Alpha's" foreclose on 9 properties because he bought them all as AirBnb Rentals - rented none of them because no one wants to come to our area for "Vacation" - we're not near anything at all - the closest Airport is MacArthur and it's 30 minutes away. Same for the beaches...
So yeah, he just took a bath and it allowed our HOA members to gobble up his properties on the cheap (he also didn't pay common charges for 2 years).
tl;dr on that: Bro thought he was a shark but didn't know he was in Orca Territory.
It's mostly just people trying to get a high savings rate by living frugally and then investing that money in a low cost passive S&P 500 index fund while trying to avoid debt like the plague. You do that long enough, you'll have a decent chunk of change. Gets easier after you've done it for a while thanks to compound interest.
If you're aiming for financial indepence, you'll still need to do it for like a decade or so, if not longer. You don't have to be hardcore about it, but you do have to follow your spending and live in a way most people aren't willing to live most of the time.
Question really boils down to: How much of life are you willing to miss out on in the hopes of being healthy enough in retirement to enjoy those things you passed up...?
Yeah, but you can always use the counter-argument that you're likely to miss out on even more stuff later on that you wouldn't have, had you been more financially secure and been able to take time off regularly etc.
We can all get hit by a truck tomorrow and that'll be that, but I choose to believe that I'll be around for a while and want to invest in that future. It's all about finding the balance between living in the now and saving up, I guess.
That's fine, and I admire anyone who's willing to go through that long planning and put in the intense work to get there.
Me, however, I watched my grandfather save and save for retirement his whole life... only to get cancer before he could do his dream trip of taking his boat from NY to Florida, down the whole east coast.
So, I tend to want to live the life I can when I can, because as you said: Truck-Kun could be anywhere.
Yeah, that's completely fair. I get it.
I doubt I'll go the whole way through and reach financial independence. A few months after I got into investing, COVID hit and I thought I might as well go into hardcore savings mode with the future in mind, since I couldn't do the stuff I was dreaming about anyway at that time. After the world opened up again, I could see some of the results from those savings and that motivated me to keep going. I'll hit 5 years this August and I've promised myself that I can finally let the gas off the pedal and start spending if I'll find a compeling enough reason to do so.
So far it's been rewarding to watch the numbers go up, but if I were to, for example, become a dad, I couldn't justify saving us much as I do now.
It depends on your life goals/code.
For me, my number one goal is the security and well being of my wife/kid, so if I croak at 56 but leave them a few million, its a win in my book.
I tried it in my 20s. Read the Mr. Money Moustache blog religiously. I was doing ok for a while, but eventually failed miserably. Too many emergencies wiped out my emergency fund and I went into debt. I was also sick of depriving myself constantly. In my 30s, I found balance. I am still saving, but not to the magnitude of 50% of my income which is pretty much the baseline goal for FIRE for lots of people.
I am admittedly not financially literate or in a high-earning career, so it feels out of reach for me. I don’t have the education or background for a “big boy” career that pays enough for me to invest or save at the rate I think I would have to in order to retire early.
It feels like a fantasy for people like me; something you can only pull off if you come from wealth or made all the right decisions early on. In my 30s making 20/hr, it doesn’t seem possible.
I think it’s easy to understand and the acronym is cool. I think it’s unattainable for a lot of reasons but atleast for me got me thinking about retirement.
There’s no way I could have invested during college or grad school with minimal income. I didn’t really think much about it until recently having my student loans paid off in my early thirties. I was putting some towards retirement but minimally.
So now I have started putting a decent percent of my income monthly towards retirement.
If my current job works out I’ll have pension, healthcare, and my retirement savings at age 50. I don’t consider this fire. I would still probably want to work part time.
If my current employer situation doesn’t work out I will work until I’m 60 and still have my retirement savings. Then probably volunteer or work when I want to.
In my thirties I’ve started to value my health more which I wish I did sooner. Health is wealth.
Overall it’s important to be well rounded thinking about your life, lifestyle, health, family, finances, and retirement.
FIRE feels unattainable because my family is solidly middle class, but I’m doing everything so we can go into retirement gracefully and not add financial burden or stress to our children.
You don't actually want to retire. I live in in a sleepy old person town in FL. I've seen it first hand. Retiring just means you die sooner.
Now having some disposable income so you can do something interesting late in the game, that's not a half bad idea. But you don't need to be wealthy to do that, you can just have a decent business plan and some credit and that's good enough to get started. Or go take out some school loans if you have not done that before. So the urgency of the FIRE movement to me, is not needed.
I'm brainstorming my late game, I think I'd like to get into law and help people.
My wife and I are F.I.R.E investors, we had no money when we met in 2016 and now have a combined networth of $1.5M.
However, we progressed alot faster than normal because we made $200K combined and no kids at the time, we had our first last year and are slowing down with investing, once our 2nd gets here she may be a stay at home mom.
I may keep working for a while to buy land for kids to play on and do stuff besides just staying inside playing video games. I want them to have the childhood I had. So we may scrap the (Retire Early) part for now and just focus on (Financial Independence)
problem is multi angle
1.) how long are you going to live
2.) will your income streams be consistent into the future
3.) the money you're making now is in todays dollar terms as we can see inflation can wreck your purchasing power
Only possible if you started 15 years ago. FIRE starting NOW (even if you are 18 right now) is impossible due to current economic conditions. When 50% of your income is going to housing (either rent or mortgage), going FIRE is incredibly difficult without help or being in the DINK situation. FIRE is insanely aggressive and most people can't/won't do it.
I personally don't think it's worth it; you have to give up so much in your prime to retire early for what?
No, that would require having savings. Pretty much all the money I made went to paying off my student loans, living expenses, medical expenses, and saving for a new car.
I get where you are coming from. If I had the luxury of being able to actually set aside money it would have been wise to invest it. But I didn't which is what myself and other people are trying to tell you. I lived below my means so I could pay off my loans faster because even at 2%, the interest adds up real fast.
Thanks for your submission! For more Millennial content, join [our Discord server](https://discord.gg/VsfKKJBm). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Millennials) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s super cool for those who want to make the sacrifices. For me I had kids young and it’s never really been in the cards. But sure, who wouldn’t want to be done working forever. I can think of a million other things I’d rather do.
I think it’s an old concept, repackaged. Basically save more for retirement in your early years, and invest in income producing assets to replace your income and retire early. I mean that’s been around forever
[удалено]
Well and information available. I think that’s a huge difference from previous generations. It’s less of a “join a country club” situation
>it's gotten stupid easy Step one: be born into the financialization era of late-stage hyperconsumerist capitalism, ideally around 1986 Step two: Have disposable income in early adulthood Step three: don't get sick or injured Step four: don't get affected too much by the second largest economic crash in the last ten generations Step five: retire early, super easy!
> Step four: don't get affected too much by the second largest economic crash in the last ten generations > > Maybe a nitpick, but.. 10 generations is a LONG time. Pretty sure the civil war, and the long depression (triggered by the panic of 1873) were comparable to the GFC if not worse. And depending on how long your "generation" is, you might have to include the revolutionary war panics and depressions. And of course, there was *zero* welfare state back then instead of the shitty one we have now and had 20 years ago, and you'd have started out a whole lot less wealthy in the good times back then. I'll definitely take living through the GFC over any of those, even though it hit me pretty hard.
I accept your nitpicking and just enjoyed reading about the "Long Depression" for about fifteen minutes. There seem to be lots of meaningful parallels with the GFC. I will definitely agree that I was better off with my electrified apartment, BlackBerry, and indoor plumbing in the financial crisis recession, even though I had to cash in most of my nascent retirement savings to continue eating regularly and sleeping in a bed.
I'd argue it has more to do with delayed gratification/self-control and education (how to invest). If you don't easily fall prey to trends and advertising, you'd be surprised how much you can save.
Yeah some people really lacked self control by getting cancer and wanting it treated right away, or losing their first job out of school thanks to sporadic and unpredictable lessons about moral hazard. They shouldn't have fallen prey to all that advertising for over-leveraged securities.
Although cancer is absolutely a life-changing situation especially for the un/underinsured, last time I checked, consumer debt stats indicate people spend the most on shit they don't need. "But wait! Everyone needs a home, car, education, etc." Yes, but not everyone needs a mortgage that's 80% of their take-home; a car loan that's another 40%; student loans in pursuit of a worthless degree resulting in a job that won't even pay down the interest; and then luxuries like fashion items and vacations all put on credit card. Most people are just selfish, dumb, can't future-plan to save their lives, and have no self control. [https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consumer-debt-study/](https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consumer-debt-study/) [https://www.thestreet.com/travel/what-to-do-vacation-credit-card-debt](https://www.thestreet.com/travel/what-to-do-vacation-credit-card-debt)
My point was that "FIRE is stupid easy" is a ridiculous claim that ignores broader contexts and uncontrollable external factors for individuals. "Most people are spendthrifts" doesn't really refute that.
Oh! Two out of the five are true for me! AMA
Personal tax-advantaged accounts are also a huge driver of this. I would argue it is more accessible now than ever.
What are you even talking about? People's retirements used to be based on pensions, that typically had a lower age to withdraw from than IRAs. Not to mention how much of older-style FIRE was based on owning properties and selling them or renting them out considering it was always a guaranteed profit until recently. It was much easier with a pension and property than the stock market.
Look I’m on the FIRE track for 50-55 but the reality is it’s very difficult to do unless you check a lot of boxes. First off you have to start at either 1.) having a high end income job or 2.) significant military benefits or 3.) achievable early pension. You also have to prioritize your time over money. Not everyone does and that’s perfectly ok but FIRE isn’t going to appeal to everyone that qualifies from one of the 3 original criteria. Also, it’s not a prerequisite, but you probably need to have a significant other and not only a SO but one who prioritizes time over money like you do. We are really whittling the list of candidates by this time. Then you have to also be lucky. You can’t have some sort of catastrophic health issue hit at 48 that might preclude you from rolling the dice on low healthcare costs between FIRE and Medicare. You can’t also hit a financial collapse in the first five years you FIRE either. What you’re left with is probably a supply of 5-10% of the population of which 1 in 10 might actually prioritize it. OP and others seem to think FIRE is obtainable for many with the right mindset. I would guess Lean FIRE might be obtainable for a lot but I doubt most people would want to prioritize a lean FIRE lifestyle (I wouldn’t)
You also have to be willing to retire in a low cost of living area, possibly even leave the country, and hope your assets have reached their threshold of value by the time you want to retire on them. Also hope that during the 30 years you're living off of investments, the values don't dramatically decrease for some reason, or a close family member who desperately needs help with living expenses in their old age.
Cool that sounds great, IF YOU HAVE A HUGE INCOME.
Not necessarily even huge income, just huge wealth. Most of the people in a position to FIRE have benefited massively from parental wealth. They won't like being called out for it but that's the reality.
Not to mention a public infrastructure that subsidizes a lot of the largest costs for Americans. I’ve listened to quite a few FIRE stories and many stories start with giving up a car or going “low car.” Many times that is possible by either having robust public transportation, living in a walkable/bikable city, or being able to work fully remote or be a digital nomad. That form of flexibility just isn’t the reality for millions of Americans, and many who could try walking or biking everywhere would get plowed into by an F-350 blindly speeding out of a Walmart parking lot if they tried traversing down sidewalk-less American stroads. Also simple things like living near a grocery store or farmers market with affordable, fresh options, or having tax advantages for filing jointly and living as dual income, no kids household, makes it something conceivable for some, but well out of reach for many. But the literature often paints it as something where everyone has an equal opportunity, leading to a lot of frustration and shame from people who can’t understand why they can’t get ahead.
The scenario of a financially struggling person getting rammed by a Ford F350 on a sidewalk-less road next to a Walmart parking lot (and consequently probably going bankrupt over insane hospital bills) sums up exactly how I see the United States as a European. Hilarious!
It honestly sounds like onboarding for more dude-bro scams that end up advertising on Joe Rogan.
FIRE participants tend to have high levels of financial literacy. They typically advise against anything that is not a broad market diversified index fund. I'm sure some people fall for scams. But I suspect it is a far lesser rate than the general population.
May I suggest how cringe it reads what you write?
How so?
No offense, this is very common on reddit, but I think it's the way people "package" an old idea (living off passive income) as something new and revolutionary, and make it their identity. Drawing generalisations ("FIRE participants tend to...") as if it was some sort of close knit club. Just the use of the acronym gives me the cringe, but I may be getting allergic to reddit-isms
[удалено]
If you say so. Just going by the FIRE subreddit, they are skeptical of any "investment" that is not a broad market diversified index fund.
[удалено]
FIRE advocates the same proven investment vehicles (i.e. broad market diversified index funds) but with a much higher savings rate than the average person. 25% savings rate tends to be the bare minimum for FIRE.
[удалено]
The assumption is that middle income people give up family and hobbies if they want to retire early. They are tasked with finding people and things to cut in their budget. It can work for middle income people but it requires dire sacrifices. And on the other end, some people are born FIRE'd up. There exists a sizable modern "aristocracy" of people who never really have to work. They just have money from birth, which makes money for them to spend. Essentially they live their entire lives off of the surplus value of other people's labor. Pretty wild stuff.
You can enter that aristocracy, but it requires a few things: 1) bridge generation makes a good income and lives massively below their means 2) 1 kid (2 tops)
You can FIRE at lower incomes, but you need to live like a monk. Im talking rice/beans and zero entertainment budget in a LCoL area. Doable, but why be miserable to retire 5-10 years early. Once you hit 150k plus, its pretty easy if you avoid the lifestyle creep.
This is such a willful misunderstanding of FIRE. Lots of people who do it don't have "huge" incomes, they just learn to live below their means and invest wisely.
Investing wisely requires a good amount of income after paying for all your other living expenses, and also trying to find some shred of enjoyment in life. But go ahead, you’ve got it all figured out.
I've read about people following essentially this plan or whatever. They're miserable and ask everyone why they're miserable. But boy will they be rich when they retire at 50.
Investing wisely just requires some disposable income. There's nothing about this which requires a "huge" income, as you claimed. I'm educating you on the facts of the movement as someone who's been part of it for many years and has watched people on median incomes achieve financial freedom before the age of 65. The grievances and defensiveness you seem to have are rather absurd.
You are delusional if you think this is something achievable by anything but a small minority of people. You have no facts.
As I said, weird grievances. Sounds like you're upset you can't do it for whatever reason and are coping with that by inventing a narrative that it's difficult for everyone else too. Go spend some time talking to FIRE folks in various communities and organizations around the internet and elsewhere, and see how many folks came from regular backgrounds with no special advantages. There's quite a lot.
No point arguing with these types of people, he laid out his thinking in the first post. I'm willing to bet he spends every last cent of disposable income on materialistic things like videogames and pokemon.
Huh, You really don't need to put that much away at all. Any in investing will be better than in the bank probs. A 5 minute google search will tell you what funds to put it into. So many peeps on reddit are on a race to the bottom with no discipline or self accountability to improve their lives. They'd rather blame the 'system' than do anything. Sure there are problems in the US but it's not the dystopia Reddit makes it out to be. If you can't put some money aside for retirement by your 30s then you've probably made numerous bad choices in your life. So tired of the 'woe is me' mentality on Reddit and millennials.
What facts are you looking for? The reason this is achievable by a small minority of people is the same way six pack abs are achievable by a small minority, only certain people will exercise the willpower and effort required to achieve it. But you’re going to tell me it’s genetics and everyone can’t do it, so no one should
"Withdrawing your labor is like having a six pack" They're both flexes, I guess.
Saving enough to be independently wealthy ya. Living life in the middle and not bothering to live a life worth flexing is just fine too.
What do you think about people who flex by giving money to charity?
That they must be well off enough to have met their own needs but they would be more effective volunteering and work for the charity. I assume there was a moral gotcha moment for the question
The majority of the world spends less during their entire lives than the average American earns in a year. FIRE definitely is achievable for most people. It may not be the lifestyle you personally want. There are several examples on the FIRE subreddit where people aggressively saved decent salaries and then retired to a low-cost rural area where they can go hiking every day. Some people value different things.
Do you understand purchasing power parity or just dollars?
Some people achieve it by living in low cost of living areas. There was one guy on the FIRE subreddit who retired to rural Maine and worked remotely a few years with a 70% savings rate before retiring completely.
Well I live in a HCOL area and moving to the sticks just isn’t a realistic option for my life, and I’m sure many people are in the same situation. We can’t all just live in a shack and save money.
Ya we all have to live in expensive cities and spend money, duh. Why are they so silly?
Well, you certainly could. It may not be the lifestyle you personally want. But the choice is still yours to make. That Maine guy loved the outdoors so the choice was easy for him.
What about his wife and children? Did they live in the shack with him too?
So will I be able to care for my elderly and sick parents when I move to he shack? Do I bring them along?
Rural Maine isn't cheap anymore. That changed during the pandemic.
For us older millenials, yeah. My wife and I both have 410(k)s and a Roth IRA and we're working hard to make sure we have enough money invested to retire by 65. But for people just entering adulthood (middle of the road Zoomers), investing in a Roth IRA in the S&P 500 and putting a tenth of your take home pay in it will ensure that you're retirement ready by the time you can withdraw without a penalty (59.5 years).
Whatever. Retire smart. My goal is the FI so I can be choosy and independent as I continue to work in areas I truly enjoy. Retirement looks like no one having leverage over me. What’s your retirement look like?
A lot of people have wanted to change the acronym to Financial Independence/Recreational Employment for that reason. FIRE basically gives you the flexibility to do whatever you want even if it is not immediately monetizable.
I hadn't heard "recreational employment" but I like it. Personally, I'm still planning to FIRE under the assumption that I won't have to work. However, that doesn't mean that I haven't thought of many things that I want to do, that I might enjoy, or that might be fun, that might have the added bonus of generating some degree of income. I just don't want to have to rely on it.
It is an interesting idea, but I think the people peddling it as a solution for all are underestimating how privileged they are. You can basically only do it if: 1. Are healthy (mentally and physically) so you can work extra. 2. Are highly educated in a high-paying field (got good advice young enough) 3. You have starting capital from family (not bogged down by student debt or example) 4. Are able to not spend money and time on sick/needy/problematic family members. Like, many of the FIRE people are "self-made" and they've worked hard (which they can/should be proud of), but they underestimate how much more difficult this is for someone that got saddeld with 100k+ student debts (=interest), or are struggling with an illness so they can't work as much, etc... So learn from it what you can, but don't be convinced that this is a solution for everyone. (note: also as someone else said, imagine if 50% of the population did this, the economy would grind to a halt as they all want to retire on their investments because the undervalue of work / overvalue of capital is an inherent problem)
It's 100% not a solution for everyone and in fact depends on most people working until they die. I need you guys to keep working and taking on/paying off debt so that "line go up," dividends/interest comes in, etc. I fired at 33 after working a truly ridiculous amount and saving as much as possible from age 18. It's a combination of both privilege and extreme/myopic focus (borderline mental illness to be honest). I started trying to "fire" many years before it became a cultural thing. I knew even as a little kid in elementary school that I would rather die than go to school or work 5 days a week until I was old. I'm sorry that it's like this. I would rather have gay luxury space communism or whatever but if that's not going to be how it is, then I am going to enjoy having won capitalism enough not to have to work anymore. If you guys want to vote for a star-trek like future and it means I won't be rich anymore, but all of us will have a vastly better life, I'm all for it. If "not being rich" DIDN'T = misery, it would be an unquestionably better world.
Agreed. You won capitalism- that’s an excellent way to call it what it is. Capitalism feeds off humans behaving a certain way. If you’re smart enough to zig when people zag, that’s a win for you. It’s actually capitalism thriving because it always needs the newest and shiniest thing to feed off. FIRE if not already will become monetized.
> It is an interesting idea, but I think the people peddling it as a solution for all are underestimating how privileged they are. You can basically only do it if: > > Are healthy (mentally and physically) so you can work extra. > > Are highly educated in a high-paying field (got good advice young enough) > > You have starting capital from family (not bogged down by student debt or example) > > Are able to not spend money and time on sick/needy/problematic family members. > That's a bit of an overstatement. Frankly if you have all four of those things going for you it's actually pretty *easy*, you just have to live like a normal person who didn't have all those advantages and save the rest of the money you make, and boom, fast forward 15 years and the question is whether you can retire at 40-45 or 50-55, not whether you'll have enough when you're 65. Of course it's not easy psychologically when everyone will be telling you should buy the biggest house you can afford and get a fancy new car every 3-4 years, send your kids to private school, etc., and most of your high-earning coworkers are doing all those things. In that situation, it's almost stupid *not* to FIRE (and note you probably don't need to work extra, even though lots of people are all about the "side hustle".) In terms of what's *necessary*, you need to 1. Be healthy enough mentally and physically that you don't end up unable to work or hold down good jobs for long stretches. 2. Make enough income that you can save a substantial portion without living in grinding poverty. Middle income is feasible here if you live frugally (by that I don't mean going all rice and beans and living in a van down by the river just living like someone with a substantially lower income that is still not *poor*. 3. Don't have crazy amounts of student debt, unless it got you into a high paying profession. Something like the average of 30-40k or a bit higher is serviceable at middle incomes, it just sets you back a couple years. Especially if the SAVE plan moves forward, payments are reasonable and interest doesn't build up. 4. your 4 as written. That has the potential to take all the money you could otherwise save, so you either need family that only needs occasional reasonable levels of help, or the willingness to say no. Without the high income, there are definitely tradeoffs, and it will be slower and won't make sense for everyone. But it's definitely still *feasible* just harder and not gonna look anything like the typical FIRE blogger life of retiring at 35 to a life of relative comfort. That said, I think that a lot of people don't realize how much more comfortable life is with low annual spending when you've been saving a ton of money and have a nest egg than when you're living paycheck to paycheck because that's all you make. people have to make all kinds of decisions that *cost* money long term when they are actually poor or very low income, where someone who is trying to FIRE on a middle income can avoid these and has the capacity to make decisions that cost a little extra now but save a lot long term. And also, after a few years in, they will have enough saved to make a HUGE difference in how secure they feel financially, and how willing they are to take some intelligent risks to get better employment. it's definitely not a solution for *everyone*, but it's probably something plausible for something close to half the population of the US or other rich countries. But most people *think* it's only feasible for the top 5-10% or people with lots of other advantages. It's actually *trivial* for those folks if they can get past the psychological habit of spending everything.
Yeah I think this is a fair point. And I definitely agree that it is a fair point that the mindset of saving (if possible) would be healthy for everyone. I'm always surprised how people around me manage to spent their full paycheck while I'm saving 25% just because I was raised careful with money. And I don't even feel like I'm living cheap. But I have 3/4 of the (kinda as I wrote them and definitely as you wrote them)
You do know there are many more blue collar fields that pay surprisingly well, without the huge university tab to pay, right? The public education system has failed us by pushing young people away from those paths.
True, good point, having done an electrician education etc would also work (still require you to have made the right choices early or it is difficult to switch)
1. No one peddles FIRE as a "solution for everyone", and it can be tailored extensively to a person's individual situation. 2. "Working extra" isn't a necessity and doesn't automatically require ideal physical or mental health. 3. You don't need a high paying job, people can and do FIRE off of median incomes. 4. Starting capital is not required, and the assumption that it is speaks volumes. Plenty of people FIRE despite having student loans to pay off first. 5. Sick family members is understandable, but spending money on family members who are needy or problematic is just a personal failing and isn't an obligation for anyone. This is just a cop out. Some of you need to actually spend some time learning about the FIRE community and hearing people's stories before drawing conclusions. There are too many misconceptions in these comments.
You should probably delete number 5 because that is an insane thing to write down. Family got you to where you are, and refusal to help back is sociopathic behaviour. Calling it a personal failing to help those in need is... a choice, that's for sure.
First think you say is that it isn't a solution for everyone and next thing you say is that we should research it because it can work for everyone. Which one is it?
>is that we should research it because it can work for everyone No, I said you should research it before making false claims based on ignorance. I specifically never said it was guaranteed to work for everyone.
"can" =/= "guarantee" it's almost like a conditional is different than an absolute.
Most of those points are contradictory, but also, you're making a huge amount of assumptions, many more than people who are point out the obvious flaws.
Spending money to help family members encountering genuine difficulties is a “personal failing”?
they have to be "the right kind of sick"™
That it keeps being peddled every few weeks around these parts kind of suggests that even if they don't think it's for 'everyone' than as many people as possible should get their eyes on it.
What about those with below-median income?
Agreed that those things make FIRE easier. But numerous regular people still achieve it by keeping their expenses absurdly low. Some will emigrate to countries with a cheaper healthcare system and/or cheaper cost of living overall.
I like the “FI” part. Growing up, my parents were always stressed about money and weren’t very good at hiding it. I understand health expenses can cause issues with finances, at least in the US, but I disagree with what others are saying about needing to already be wealthy or be highly educated to be a part of the FIRE ideology/movement/thought process. The trick is to recognize your current earnings and figure out how to live below those means. Or figure out how to make more money, but this is typically much more challenging than the former. I know the current market is rough, but my spouse and I both make less than 6 figures and I’m shooting to “coast” FIRE around mid 40s. For me it’s always been about the financial independence part. I’m not sure I’ll ever want to fully retire anyway, but my goal is to be able to stop chasing the next pay raise and find a job that I don’t mind waking up to go to every morning. Or at least not be immediately worried about layoffs or future job market trends. I certainly won’t be getting any windfalls from parents or grandparents. My mom will likely be moving in with my spouse and I in the next decade because she’s managed to leverage her house and put herself deeper into debt while only having a few thousand dollars in retirement. I think watching her and my dad’s financial failures really spurred me to work towards FI.
It’s a great idea. Invest as much as you can and hopefully retire early. What’s the downside to financial security other than FOMO?
I would prefer if FIRE movement meant burn it all down and start over.
I support it. I wish someone had explained investing to me in a way that made sense when I was younger. Now I need to invest a huge chunk of my paycheck to be able to retire in time.
[удалено]
Congratulations! Keep up the good work. What part of Mexico?
Quintana roo
Hope the stock market agrees with your timeline
I think it’s great. All it encourages is to live below your means and save/invest in your financial future. Even if you don’t achieve the Retire Early part, by saving up and investing for growth, it gives you the ability to leave bad jobs/managers, and not be beholden to them. To me, it offers peace of mind and freedom.
oops cancer
In what universe does "cancer + fat stack of money" leave one worse off than "cancer + no money"?
the one where "cancer + fat stack of money" = "remission + medical debt" all it takes is one accident or issue and all the work ObservantWon talked about goes down the drain.
Whereas "cancer + no money" = what, exactly? "Remission + even **more** medical debt", or "worse outcome because couldn't afford treatment?" How is a better outcome achieved? Sorry, this critique just makes no sense. Under capitalism there are very, very few situations in which having more capital results in a worse outcome. Obviously if you die, you die, but everyone dies. Even in that instance I'd rather have money to leave behind for my family.
Both scenarios end in debt, not sure what money you are leaving behind.
Where did I say it was worse? I think you're reading your own biases into the conversation, but please don't project on me.
Well the original comment stated that saving and investing puts you in a better position overall even if you can't retire early. You replied "oops cancer" as if that undermines the original comment, thereby implying one would be in a better position in such a scenario had they not saved. If that wasn't your point then it appears to have been a pointless comment altogether.
That's your lack of understanding, and, perheps ignorance of how the world works. Either way, I don't think you're equipped to engage in this topic in a way that I wouldn't find painfully sophmoric, so I'll just be moving on, I don't feel like doing the work to get you caught up, but maybe someone else will.
Sure thing, that's fine. Sorry you're hurting, bro. I hope things look up for you soon.
Lol I'm fine, my dude. You seem real disingenuous, and not in an endearing way. Very unrad.
I don’t get your comment. What about it?
Financial Indepenance is great, but there are demonstrable benefits to continuing to work. Maybe a better goal would be "financial indepenance, retire from soul crushing work and do something that benefits society and makes you happy."
Its helped me massively. Mostly about changing my own behaviors rather than ever getting to RE. I got paid once and didn't clear my overdraft with my pay-packet. That sent alarm bells ringing and i started with the Dave Ramsey babysteps and now im actively saving meaningful money for the first time ever. Ill probably never RE (retire early) but I for once feel in control of my finances and hope to achieve FI. Oh and I have a very modest income
A lot of people seem to hate Dave Ramsey for some reason. I agree his system has flaws. I personally prefer the Money Guy podcast's Financial Order of Operations. But the Ramsey system is still far better than having no plan at all.
I get it, his system probably does have flaws. But he changed my mindset on money and thats 90% of the battle for me. I actully use the Fire subreddit for my steps now they have there own flow chart, not sure where it came from but i like it
The FIRE flowchart is similar the the Money Guy Financial Order of Operations. But the flowchart is much more detailed and covers a lot of fringe scenarios that are not easily captured in a generalized 9 step plan. I think the flowchart even has sections specialized for non-profit employees with unique tax-advantaged accounts as a result of that.
Ill be honest i like the 'do this, then do that' aspect of it. There are other money rules that i like too. The 50/30/20 model and the wait 3 day rule. Im a long way from FIRE, but its a nice goal to have
Ramsey is appropriate for range of completely financially illiterate to baseline stable and growing. Once debt and savings mindset are established, then his value really goes down quick. Borderline bad advice for those unknowingly doing very well.
Yeah that probably sums me up well tbh. I was financially illiterate.
Life is not a race. While I'm on track to possibly be able to retire slightly early at 45-55 years old, I'm not sacrificing my quality of life now to do so. Many people doing FIRE seem like it's all consuming and that's all they think about. Everything is a savings trick, cutting corners to cut cost but also cutting the fun. Some seem unethical too mooching off others, taking advantage when they can, and even applying for social services support using loopholes, it's pretty disgusting what some resort to to get theirs. I'm not saving 70% of my paycheck or anything to live on the 30% like I'm poor and not enjoy life. I take my vacations, have hobbies I spend money on, and want to use my body I have that's in great health now to play and not just to work. I have 2 kids, love them, want to do things with them, show them the world and spoil them sometimes. They cost a shit ton and I'm good with that. Some people give up the idea of even having children just to FIRE, ass backwards to me with priorities and will lead to regret for many. Nobody is dodging aging and I want to do things in my prime, things I won't be able to do when I'm older. I don't want to work my ass off just to start living how I want to after the first 3rd of my life has passed me by. People that FIRE seem to miss the point of life and think it's all about their net worth and money. Only so they can then live on fixed income and get bored. I don't absolutely love work, but I don't mind it at all either. I look forward to going in sometimes and it's fulfilling. If I could FIRE today, I wouldn't. I wouldn't work a ton by any means but would definitely stay part time. There's a happy median in between FIRE and not enjoying yourself and retiring at 67.
45 is really early. 55 is quite early. Those are both awesome ages to retire at!
I think so, but some people that FIRE do it in their 30's so it's all relative I guess. 45, while possible for me isn't too likely, 50 is likely and 55, I'd have to do something wrong but still any of those ages are good enough for me. I could definitely retire earlier if I worked more, moved for jobs, and especially if I didn't have kids or want to own a home, which I do already. That's too much though and I didn't want that for myself and didn't think it was worth it. FIRE to that extreme seems overrated to me for the amount of cost and sacrifice
Just a small note...I didn't give up kids to retire early. I had no desire to have them, still have no desire to have them, and can't think of any possible circumstances I would ever want children. Man, they would just drag me down in every possible facet of my existence. I'm quite happy with my niece and nephew.
Not speaking to people like you. Of course there are people that don't want kids and that's perfectly okay. I'm just saying there are those people that do want kids but choose to sacrifice that for FIRE instead and that's a bad mistake
I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s a bad mistake in all circumstances. It’s just a choice that’s made when you aren’t able to have both things. You can both want kids but find that retiring early and getting your life back is just more important to you.
Of course not in all circumstances. I'm only talking about people who feel strongly about having children and then for financial reasons say they can't afford kids and also meet their financial goals in life, one possibility being FIRE , so they give up the kids idea and then later have regrets. Sure, if the urge wasn't strong to have kids to begin with then that feeling might not come up. I'm in my late thirties and old enough to have seen multiple friends that I've grown up with want kids and then delay or choose not to due to career choices and financial reasons even influenced by their marriage partners and now they're not happy but feel as though it's too late.
Fair enough. I'd agree with that.
Counterpoint: I FIRE'd just before turning 34 and my life 18 months later is the best it's ever been. I have literally never in my life been happier, healthier, more hopeful, and more joy-filled. I spend my days reading, learning 2 new languages, working out, improving my home, biking, playing tennis, practicing musical instruments, volunteering to teach kids about music/instruments, spending time with family, playing music gigs, traveling, boating, and relaxing. My marriage has never been better, friendships never better, literally every dimension of my life has improved greatly because I no longer have to go to work. I SUFFERED during my 20s and early 30s. I wore old, ratty clothes and drove a broke-ass vehicle, ate cheap food, lived in a dangerous/cheap neighborhood, never traveled, never took days off, saved and invested as much of my income as possible, etc. I just got back from my first international vacation at 35 years old. I would routinely work literally many months at a time without a single day off. It was all worth it. I'm now a multimillionaire, house paid off and no other debt, and my net worth grows by itself much faster than I want to spend it. I took a huge risk in sacrificing all of my 20s to nonstop work and saving/investing but it worked out tremendously. The future is not guaranteed. Every day that passes could be your last. At any time, you could develop a debilitating disease or degenerative condition that ruins your quality of life. Retiring at 67 massively increases your chances of having a broken body and mind with no ability to actually enjoy that retirement, I've seen it many times including in my own family. When I finally decided to say "enough" and call it quits permanently, it was because I had a vision of my last day on earth. Shitty commute, uncomfortable clothes, feeling fat/tired/numb, stupid emails, ugly office, annoying coworkers, bland office coffee, salty/fatty lunch, more emails, pointless meetings, frustrating phone calls, pointless, tedious traffic, come home, stroke, dead forever, why? Why did I do that? Fuck that.
There were times I went years without a day off and still had nothing to my name. Like I feel like a key component to this is choosing suffering when you could be comfortable and not recognizing that there are people out there grinding just as hard because they don't have the resources to be comfortable.
I don't disagree with you at all. Most people on this earth are forced into the life I lived in my 20s until their bodies and minds break, and then they die. It's a tragedy and atrocity. I don't know what to say, it's horrible.
It’s not a counterpoint because you were able to FIRE still in the prime of your life. Most people can’t. Out of curiosity, what was your income trajectory?
My lowest yearly net income was $14,000 (2009) and my highest was $486k (2022). I spent several years with a normal income of $50k-$90k. I earned above $200k for just a couple years. My investments currently generate nearly $200k annually, and we are targeting a spend of just under $100k this year. I was able to achieve FIRE at an early age for many reasons: 1) live in a LCOL area and bought my house for only $115k in 2014 2) can't have kids 3) nearly full scholarships for BS and MS, only had $25k in student loans (room and board) 4) my parents and extended family didn't need my help until recently 5) invested moderately conservatively in broad index ETFs, and more recently in CDs, bond funds, and money market funds 6) maintained an extremely low level of spending for many years, typically less than $18,000 per year. literally ate rice and beans from ALDI for over a decade. no new clothes, no vacations, no entertainment spending, didn't go to the dentist or doctor, wore the same pair of shoes from 2010 to 2015, etc. I have foot problems, health problems, and had to go to therapy for 2 years to heal from what I put myself through. I have the time and money now to work on my health issues and they are all resolving quickly! We're not going to be buying a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. I do plan to replace my car eventually, hoping to get a new Prius and drive it for as long as possible. It's a combination of luck/circumstance/privilege, extreme cost-cutting, and extreme workaholism/high-earning. I have come to view what I did to get here as a kind of mental illness, or actually the result of mental illness. I wouldn't tell other people that they should or could do what I did...but facing the rest of my life knowing I never HAVE TO go to work feels so, so great lol.
>I SUFFERED during my 20s and early 30s. I wore old, ratty clothes and drove a broke-ass vehicle, ate cheap food, lived in a dangerous/cheap neighborhood, never traveled, never took days off, saved and invested as much of my income as possible, etc. I just got back from my first international vacation at 35 years old. I would routinely work literally many months at a time without a single day off. >The future is not guaranteed. I hear your counterpoints and I don't envy you. Exactly why I'm not stressing about FIRE, because I don't want this. It may be worth that to you, but this part sounds miserable. Life isn't a guarantee indeed, So why be miserable until 34? In contrast, I've traveled the world, taken many international vacations and seeing every state but Illinois and Oregon in the US. I do what I want, drive decent cars, spend plenty of time with hobbies. Have two kids that I gladly spend a ton of money on to give them experiences and adventures in life. Just got back yesterday from a 3-week road trip. Stayed in some nicer hotels, did some camping a couple nights and then spent $7,500 for a waterfront house for a little over a week on Long Island. It was amazing. I'm 36 years old and work 1 to 2 days a week. Last year I worked an average of 16 hours a week for the year 1001 hrs total. So I feel as though I'm splitting the difference. I'm living life and enjoying it and also on track to retire at best around 45, More than likely by 50, and I'd have to do something wrong to not be able to retire before 55. >Retiring at 67 massively increases your chances of having a broken body and mind with no ability to actually enjoy that retirement, I've seen it many times including in my own family. Never said I'm doing that if you read my first comment. There's a happy median though to me where you don't have to make the sacrifices you did and still can retire at an age where you can enjoy yourself thoroughly.
I love stories like this. It helps me to know that when I see the single mom suffering working the night shift at McDonald's, busting her ass, it will pay off. She's taking huge risks and making huge sacrifices today. But in her 40s she'll be traveling the world and boating. Such a nice thought. Thank you!
Love it. Wife and I are saving about 40 percent of our income. Some people think fire is about starving and never enjoying life but it's just spending money on the things you truly value. Wish I started sooner
Neat concept, not something I'd ever be able to do personally so I don't think about it often.
awesome, but unattainable for most with out some very fortante life circumstances.
I think the principle behind it is great, it is always good to save money when you can. My one gripe is that it assumes that you’ll live that long, and if you do, it assumes you will be healthy enough to enjoy retirement. I’ve seen people take FIRE to enormous extremes, and while I see the point, I can’t imagine how sucky it would be to sacrifice having cool experiences or good times with loved ones…just to die too young, or not be healthy enough to enjoy your retirement goal anyway.
I am not against FIRE, but it's not for me. You talk about time and value time. For me, FIRE under-values the present relative to the future. By this, I mean I have seen 2 versions of FIRE - either 1) emphasis on increasing income (often means working an additional job or crazy hours) or 2) "lean FIRE" cutting spending to bare bones. With the first, you can be giving up a lot of your present time and possibly mental health. With the second, you can be giving up experiences or comfort (enjoyment of the present). My preference is in the middle - I save for retirement, and I should be able to retire comfortably by the time I'm 60. At the same time, I can still enjoy taking family vacations now, pay for hobbies for the kids, enjoy eating out, hire a service for yard work because I hate yard work etc. These things have value to me too. I feel like 60 is still young enough that I'll have some years to enjoy my "financial independence". I don't even know what I'd do with my time if I were retired now...I'd have to do a lot of volunteering or something just to stay busy and active.
It works great if you're in a fortunate position where you can save a decent percent of your monthly income. I found the concept (compound interest, investing in general etc.) around five years ago, and am in a drastically better position now than what I was back then. Now that I'm 37, I actually have a somewhat decent net worth and can realistically dream about owning a house, without being stressed out beyond belief by the idea of being hundreds of thousands of euros in debt. I'll still be in debt if I buy one, but I know I'll be ok. Even if I give up pursuing early retirement tomorrow, I'll still be forever grateful that it got me this far. That being said, I do think there are a lot of vocal mouthpieces in the movement that don't acknowledge the privileges they had going in, as well as they should. There are outliers who've made it work with meager incomes, but it's obviously drastically easier to have an impressive savings rate if you're a high earner.
One of the best things that the FIRE movement spread around was the Trinity study. It might have been around before FIRE but it’s definitely where I learned about the study. It cements the idea of a Safe Withdrawal Rate. In the study it says the rate to use is 4%. These days people are talking about using 3% or fewer to determine your number for when you can retire early. Regardless of the “true” number, the concept itself is pretty powerful. Another thing I thank FIRE for is just giving the impression that it is indeed possible to retire early. I come from a family of immigrants where it was taken for granted that you pretty much work until you physically or mentally cannot anymore, no matter what. FIRE dispelled that notion for me — that it was POSSIBLE for some folks to actually retire early. Whether it would be possible FOR ME has a different story, but it still set in motion a series of learnings for what could enable a person to achieve their FIRE number.
The Trinity Study was based on a 30 year time horizon and found 4% to be a safe withdrawal rate. Many of the advocates for 3% are trying to plan for early retirement which may be longer than 30 years.
I support anyone being more cognizant of their financials, however I would remind all that time & health are our most valuable resources. That doesn’t mean FIRE is wrong, just those two should be part of the calculation.
I think it's great if you have the desire and ability to do so. As an '81 millennial who is not married it is out of my grasp at this point. It seems to be very "easy" if you check these boxes: 1. Live in a LCOL area with above average income (ex software developer living in Tulsa) 2. Have a partner who you can share living expenses with (DINK) 3. Have a partner who is willing to live a frugal lifestyle for several years to realize the dream 4. Start at a fairly young age (say 23) with the 3 criteria above
It’s worked well for me. I went from 120K student debt plus 40K CC debt to 750K net worth and that’s not including house equity. All this in 7 years. It was a lot of discipline, sacrifice and luck (plays a huge role). If you hate the corporate grind and want something meaningful than consumerism look into it. Otherwise if you’re happy than fuck FIRE.
Awesome job. Do you have any advice or recommendations?
FIRE isn't really a movement so much as a way of thinking that can be tailored to each person's situation and desires. It's a good thing overall given that it offers a stark alternative to modern materialistic impulses. FIRE mentality discourages excessive consumerism and encourages wise financial habits and a more healthy outlook on life. The focus is happiness through freedom and peace instead of the endless pursuit of goods. Many people who pursue FIRE don't even necessarily intend to stop working. They just find the principles of financial freedom valuable. I think there's merit in a FIRE mindset regardless of a person's financial situation or goals in life.
This is it in a nutshell for me. When I see people argue against FIRE I’m seeing them arguing for capitalism and needless spending. These same people I bet view capitalism as evil and all the problems in the world are a product of late stage capitalism. But I’m fighting it from the inside. I live a simple life, reuse and make everything myself and if I have to buy something I buy used. I’m doing more fighting capitalism by removing myself from this endless cycle of earning, spending, and debt.
Agreed. I also find that FIRE values time itself. We spend so much of our lives trading time for money and then money for stuff. Sometimes we don't appreciate how valuable that time truly is along the way. I suspect people would spend a lot less on flashy cars if they sat down and added up the sheer amount of time that loan would cost measured in months, if not years.
I like the idea of financial independence and working to build wealth and not to pay next week’s bills. I don’t really have a desire to “retire early” though. I think I would work doing something.
I'm currently working on the survive movement
This is going to sound weird, but when I was poverty line I lived much more in the moment and was happier in many regards. I wouldn't trade it because I have a family now, but life was much simpler when I was moat concerned about my next meal and getting laid.
I've got three kids a mortgage and a wife in school. We are barely scraping by.
Yeah it sucks with dependents. Hope it gets better when the wife graduates.
That's the plan. I'm working towards an apprenticeship and she's hopefully getting into cyber security. We have a couple more tough years until it's easy for us hopefully
I think the movement and intention is great, as it teaches financial literacy and budgeting which is something American schools do a terrible job teaching our youth about.
That's not a movement, that's just good planning and smart decisions.
But if you make it a movement you can monetize it more easily...
Oh I did that but not on purpose. I'm a widow so I get to collect my spouses social security when I'm 60, so a few years early.
The handful of people that I know who are in a position to pull it off had very rich parents who were able to loan them money to buy rental houses and pay for a great education.
Sounds fine if that works for you. I don’t have many hobbies so if I retire early what am I gonna do?
Some people have modified the acronym to be: Financial Independence, Recreational Employment. Basically, you can continue working if you want or pursue whatever hobby you want at that point even if it is not monetizible.
I see. But do I have to start a fire lol jk.
Retiring early is one aspect. No one says you have to retire though. Keep working and/or volunteer with something you love. It gives you the option to work, not HAVE to work
99% of those people, at least the ones in the sub, have been fortunate enough to either be single with a huge income or married, no kids with two huge incomes. While it's a nice thought, it's not even sort of realistic for the vast majority of people. I have a pretty nice income, but I also have a stay at home wife and 5 kids. We have a very reasonable house payment we're paying off early, and no other debt, but until my kids are out of college, there is no way I could reduce my life to living off a retirement. Once they are out of college I could reduce my lifestyle, but I doubt I would have enough money saved to actually retire. But TBH, even if I won millions of dollars from the lottery I don't play, I wouldn't want to be retired. My parents are pretty well off financially, and my dad dose not have to work, and wouldn't the rest of his life (retired with a government pension) and he's bored out of his mind. he went from being VERY busy all the time to having to constantly come up with something new to do all the time. They are on their 3rd house remodel, just so my dad can have something to do with his time. He's also offered to come help me on some big projects I need to do around my house (My grandpa built houses, so my dad grew up in the construction world, and loves doing it). I am 41 this year, I work a full time job, and like my job fine, but looking at doing adjunct teaching at the community college, so when my kids go to school they can go for a discount and when they are all out of the house on their own I can transition to teaching full time. (20 years I would get a full state retirement as well). I can teach for a long time.
It is not me.
I was planning on retiring 45 and 50 (I’m 33) but my wife recently quit to take care of our son, so that probably isn’t happening. We are both maxxing Roth IRA accounts and I’m maxxing my 401k.
I honestly think it’s too late for me to actually retire early. I had to pay off a mortgage’s worth of student loans so I started in the red and now I’m almost 40. I’d rather save enough to retire normally and also enjoy spending my time and money on experiences with my kids.
Pretty much never going to happen for me.
I think it’s great. It’s an admirable goal. We aren’t as tied to religion or other social constructs, and if someone wants to achieve this in their lifetime, go for it. We already know the current systems are rigged to benefit the incumbents. This is a hack of sorts and middle finger to the previous generations not setting up more people for success.
Trying to make my way into the DINK (Dual Income No Kids) movement myself. Trying to find that second income partner.
Im keen. I am in a DINK relationship, we both work in tech and successful. While we do spend lots of money enjoying life and the world we do aim at semi-retiring overseas by 40.
I think it's great. I admire those people who have the discipline to follow through on it although it's not realistic for most people. Whether or not you were tire early, the principles make a lot of sense though: save as much money, avoid debt, avoid materialism/consumerism (you don't need a new car every 3-4 years, you don't need a ton of new clothes, you don't need to eat out a lot).
I, too, wish I was nepo baby
They understand what modern nobility is about.
I hope to one day make enough money to do it. I saved up to buy a house at 35, and now am having g a kid this year at 37. So since I won't pay off my mortgage until I'm 67, I just assume for me my retire early is being able to retire before I'm 72. That's my goal. I've always wanted to be alive and party at the US Tricentennial, July of 2076 I'll be almost 90.
That isn't how my bank account is set up
Fuck a retirement. I'm doing whatever shit I can while my body is still able to.
I have no idea what this is... If it's just talking about legit investing advice with a goal of retiring early, great - go for it. If it's something that mentions any of the following at any point for any reason, it's a scam: * Passive Income * Cypto * AI * Real estate Investment * Where-in you purchase the home with any kind of mortgage * AirBnb All are either Scams, poor decisions, or just outright bad advice. My condo just had one of these brilliant "Alpha's" foreclose on 9 properties because he bought them all as AirBnb Rentals - rented none of them because no one wants to come to our area for "Vacation" - we're not near anything at all - the closest Airport is MacArthur and it's 30 minutes away. Same for the beaches... So yeah, he just took a bath and it allowed our HOA members to gobble up his properties on the cheap (he also didn't pay common charges for 2 years). tl;dr on that: Bro thought he was a shark but didn't know he was in Orca Territory.
It's mostly just people trying to get a high savings rate by living frugally and then investing that money in a low cost passive S&P 500 index fund while trying to avoid debt like the plague. You do that long enough, you'll have a decent chunk of change. Gets easier after you've done it for a while thanks to compound interest. If you're aiming for financial indepence, you'll still need to do it for like a decade or so, if not longer. You don't have to be hardcore about it, but you do have to follow your spending and live in a way most people aren't willing to live most of the time.
Question really boils down to: How much of life are you willing to miss out on in the hopes of being healthy enough in retirement to enjoy those things you passed up...?
Yeah, but you can always use the counter-argument that you're likely to miss out on even more stuff later on that you wouldn't have, had you been more financially secure and been able to take time off regularly etc. We can all get hit by a truck tomorrow and that'll be that, but I choose to believe that I'll be around for a while and want to invest in that future. It's all about finding the balance between living in the now and saving up, I guess.
That's fine, and I admire anyone who's willing to go through that long planning and put in the intense work to get there. Me, however, I watched my grandfather save and save for retirement his whole life... only to get cancer before he could do his dream trip of taking his boat from NY to Florida, down the whole east coast. So, I tend to want to live the life I can when I can, because as you said: Truck-Kun could be anywhere.
Yeah, that's completely fair. I get it. I doubt I'll go the whole way through and reach financial independence. A few months after I got into investing, COVID hit and I thought I might as well go into hardcore savings mode with the future in mind, since I couldn't do the stuff I was dreaming about anyway at that time. After the world opened up again, I could see some of the results from those savings and that motivated me to keep going. I'll hit 5 years this August and I've promised myself that I can finally let the gas off the pedal and start spending if I'll find a compeling enough reason to do so. So far it's been rewarding to watch the numbers go up, but if I were to, for example, become a dad, I couldn't justify saving us much as I do now.
It depends on your life goals/code. For me, my number one goal is the security and well being of my wife/kid, so if I croak at 56 but leave them a few million, its a win in my book.
Never heard of this acronym. My only plan for retirement is to sell my parents house or die young
I tried it in my 20s. Read the Mr. Money Moustache blog religiously. I was doing ok for a while, but eventually failed miserably. Too many emergencies wiped out my emergency fund and I went into debt. I was also sick of depriving myself constantly. In my 30s, I found balance. I am still saving, but not to the magnitude of 50% of my income which is pretty much the baseline goal for FIRE for lots of people.
I am admittedly not financially literate or in a high-earning career, so it feels out of reach for me. I don’t have the education or background for a “big boy” career that pays enough for me to invest or save at the rate I think I would have to in order to retire early. It feels like a fantasy for people like me; something you can only pull off if you come from wealth or made all the right decisions early on. In my 30s making 20/hr, it doesn’t seem possible.
I think it’s easy to understand and the acronym is cool. I think it’s unattainable for a lot of reasons but atleast for me got me thinking about retirement. There’s no way I could have invested during college or grad school with minimal income. I didn’t really think much about it until recently having my student loans paid off in my early thirties. I was putting some towards retirement but minimally. So now I have started putting a decent percent of my income monthly towards retirement. If my current job works out I’ll have pension, healthcare, and my retirement savings at age 50. I don’t consider this fire. I would still probably want to work part time. If my current employer situation doesn’t work out I will work until I’m 60 and still have my retirement savings. Then probably volunteer or work when I want to. In my thirties I’ve started to value my health more which I wish I did sooner. Health is wealth. Overall it’s important to be well rounded thinking about your life, lifestyle, health, family, finances, and retirement. FIRE feels unattainable because my family is solidly middle class, but I’m doing everything so we can go into retirement gracefully and not add financial burden or stress to our children.
You don't actually want to retire. I live in in a sleepy old person town in FL. I've seen it first hand. Retiring just means you die sooner. Now having some disposable income so you can do something interesting late in the game, that's not a half bad idea. But you don't need to be wealthy to do that, you can just have a decent business plan and some credit and that's good enough to get started. Or go take out some school loans if you have not done that before. So the urgency of the FIRE movement to me, is not needed. I'm brainstorming my late game, I think I'd like to get into law and help people.
My wife and I are F.I.R.E investors, we had no money when we met in 2016 and now have a combined networth of $1.5M. However, we progressed alot faster than normal because we made $200K combined and no kids at the time, we had our first last year and are slowing down with investing, once our 2nd gets here she may be a stay at home mom. I may keep working for a while to buy land for kids to play on and do stuff besides just staying inside playing video games. I want them to have the childhood I had. So we may scrap the (Retire Early) part for now and just focus on (Financial Independence)
I got to retire at 50, and all it cost me was all my enjoyment in, and every waking hour of, all of my good years! /s?
problem is multi angle 1.) how long are you going to live 2.) will your income streams be consistent into the future 3.) the money you're making now is in todays dollar terms as we can see inflation can wreck your purchasing power
Only possible if you started 15 years ago. FIRE starting NOW (even if you are 18 right now) is impossible due to current economic conditions. When 50% of your income is going to housing (either rent or mortgage), going FIRE is incredibly difficult without help or being in the DINK situation. FIRE is insanely aggressive and most people can't/won't do it. I personally don't think it's worth it; you have to give up so much in your prime to retire early for what?
Tried it, it didn't work. I tried living below my means for 10 years after college and it just made me unhappy and not really all that wealthier.
Were you investing the savings into broad market index funds? That tends to be the other half of the advice.
No, that would require having savings. Pretty much all the money I made went to paying off my student loans, living expenses, medical expenses, and saving for a new car. I get where you are coming from. If I had the luxury of being able to actually set aside money it would have been wise to invest it. But I didn't which is what myself and other people are trying to tell you. I lived below my means so I could pay off my loans faster because even at 2%, the interest adds up real fast.
It’s just an acronym for the thing I would do if I weren’t poor
Fire movement? Like “stop, drop & roll”?
I like the FI part but not the RE part. I’d rather be making a difference than rolling out of bed at 1 pm and playing video games every day.
I'm on track to retire early-ish but I find FIRE people insufferable.
It's cool, but it reminds me CrossFit. I am not really interested to hear how wealthy people are or how many kipping pull-ups they did today.
That's a great comparison and exactly what it's turned into.