Thanks all again for your inputs. I cannot help but wonder whether the aggregate of 2 lowest cycles is unrealistic. Taking the lowest of two 25-year cycles in sequence creates a sort of 'double worse' case scenario, does it not? In other words, the worst possible outcome of 25 years is taken among 110+ possible periods that FireCalc looks at. Then, this is paired again with exactly same worse case - As both periods are overlapping, this is not historical data just a math exercise. This kind of double-worse outcome is a probability of (1/110)*(1/110) = 8.25 E-05 or 0.0083%. While probability is calculated by simple math, the likelihood of two consecutive 25-year disasters in global capital markets - both identically worst case in outcome as FireCalc reports - may be even more remote than what the probability estimates. It just never happened in the last 100+ years of capital market history, at least from what I have read (which may be wrong).
So, while on one hand, I appreciate the new insight this kind of conservative FireCalc analysis shows, I am wondering if this should drive ER decision or not? Do you all do this and decide on ER based on the 'double worse' case scenario in all your analysis? For example, do you split even a 30-year retirement into 2 consecutive 15-year periods where the 'low' of first period is input into the second period?
As to my decision, I am mentally preparing myself to move to a full-time job rather than part-time and earn about $120K/year as per an offer I just got. My idea is that a job like this for even 3 years will help increase both the retirement pool and reduce the years to fund my retirement to hopefully make the situation better. But I shudder to run the 'double worse' case scenario again. :-(