Cool FIRE article in MSN Money

[Fedup]

Google employees are very sharp. Google has a lot of dough and gets the cream of the crop.

My daughter had a tough network project and she said to me even though two other graduating seniors were offered a job at Google, they didn't finish it or had trouble with. It's her way of excusing why she didn't do well.

 

[Elbata]

I am really getting sick of these "millennial saved big money and retired early stories."

So 2 middle class income earners supposedly stashed 1 million away and are now retired. Yes sure. Happens every day in America.

Seriously. The math does not work. Sorry, just not buying another early 30's millennial retired early story on the internet. This is fake crap.

To the OP who mentioned the article is decent...the comments are gold: I thought, wait till you read some of the comments on this ER site about this.

And if this was the Boglehead Forum, well, forgetaboutit.

So, this is how it is, ER works for me, but not for thee.

 

[eta2020]

BTW they sleep sometimes in some specially made beds in their station wagon. So even now they are pretty frugal bunch.

My wife would not call sleeping in a car "retirement" .

 

[bclover]

BTW they sleep sometimes in some specially made beds in their station wagon. So even now they are pretty frugal bunch.

My wife would not call sleeping in a car "retirement" .

Lol, my husband would have been calling me his "ex-wife" if he had suggested it.

I guess that's why I don't hang out on MM site, lol having a bed is "consumerism"

C'est la Vie

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[FUEGO]

You guys get that they are camping and have built a sleeping platform in the back of their 4 Runner to accommodate their gear and their beds. Curtains around the outside for privacy. Big 12V batteries connect to their fridge in the car and provide recharge capability for phones and other electronics.

I thought their set up was very impressive. I'm a little shocked more of the engineering types here aren't drooling over that aspect of it (if you actually read their blog article about Bruno, their 4 runner). Yeah, it's "sleeping in a car" but it's also a 4 wheel drive vehicle with sleeping quarters in the back that explored Mexico and Central America.

How would you realistically explore central America in more luxury, and get off road and be mobile while camping like this? Buy a $500,000 Class A motorhome and tow a 4 Runner behind it?

For the record, I wouldn't be comfortable sleeping in the 4 runner I don't think and certainly wouldn't get DW in it, but might do something like that in a larger car (our Toyota minivan seems about the right size).

 

[Fedup]

BTW they sleep sometimes in some specially made beds in their station wagon. So even now they are pretty frugal bunch.

My wife would not call sleeping in a car "retirement" .

RV is different. But I've met two persons who got kicked out of their apartments due to money trouble. They slept in their cars and showered at 24-Fitness.
Not quite homeless because they can live in a car.

 

[hakuna matata]

I keep reading all the outcry here and keep wondering if I read the same article and blogs.

...

But don't cry out that it can't be done... because some folks are choosing to live uber-frugal, add a bit more risk to their portfolio than you might be comfortable with, and free themselves from the daily alarm clock and 8-5 drudgery.

If you think these blogs are saying it can happen without the effort - you'd be correct in saying it's a unicorn. But they are advocating a lifestyle that might be different than the one you are comfortable with - but is possible and might be the right choice for them. They are not saying it can happen without sacrifice.

(You is used in this post for all the critics posting in this thread.)

Agree 100%

I retired at age 55 with more then enough money, seems some folks here wanted me to keep working until I doubled or tripled it (which I would have done by age 65)...but why? I have all I need, and am comfortable now with my risk. Would I do what they are doing? Nope-but I am more risk averse then they are, but it doesn't make them wrong or me right. I chose 55, they chose 30--both ages have risks with the 30 one, way outside my comfort zone. I could be wrong on my numbers too and run out at 80, well that isn't what I want, and I have hedged my bets as best I can, but it a risk that I am taking.

Yes these kids could work until 50 and a have a huge nest egg, who cares. That is such a personal decision for each person/couple. What is enough for me and my risk might scare the pants off you, so don't do that! Save/work until you die at your desk--no skin off my nose! Same with these kids, they might not have enough, so what? Let's say they run out at age 50, well then they can go back to work if they can find work. Again their choice and no skin off my nose there either. Certainly not enough to get my panties in a wad over. Obviously some people mileage may vary from mine!

I wish them luck and hope they make it, the same I wish for any of you all out there in early retirement land!

 

[Sarah in SC]

Sleeping in a specially outfitted camping vehicle is worlds away from sleeping in a car because you are homeless.

I've slept in our school bus or in tents around it for weeks at a stretch. I'd KILL to have a rig like theirs! One day, perhaps we will tear out those tiny seats and make it a deluxe vehicle, perhaps when we (finally) make that PanAmerican Highway trip happen!

 

[FUEGO]

Sleeping in a specially outfitted camping vehicle is worlds away from sleeping in a car because you are homeless.

I've slept in our school bus or in tents around it for weeks at a stretch. I'd KILL to have a rig like theirs! One day, perhaps we will tear out those tiny seats and make it a deluxe vehicle, perhaps when we (finally) make that PanAmerican Highway trip happen!

$500,000 Class A motorhome or you're homeless, Sarah. Sorry, dems the rules. The price of "retirement" apparently.

 

[RobbieB]

Yeah Baby!

Diesel pusher or it don't count. Greyhound.

 

[FI by 2024]

I keep reading all the outcry here and keep wondering if I read the same article and blogs.

In the article linked in the OP, and on MMM, and our own Fuego's blog - they all push a singular message: If you cut your expenses, save money, and keep investing your savings... you can reach retirement at a younger age than is traditionally considered "normal". No one is saying you can live a more typical, consumer oriented lifestyle - (new homes, latest car either leased or purchased on credit, designer clothes and handbags, eating out every day at lunch, drinks every night with friends after work) that you'll be able to retire younger than FRA.

I look at some of the examples here on this board who've survived retiring younger than planned - but through frugal lifestyles - have stayed retired. Unclemick comes to mind. Major Tom comes to mind. They may not have been 30yo's... but they managed their spending and stayed retired.

It's all about choices. Some folks don't want to trim expenses as much as the Freedom with Bruno folks, or the MMM folks. That's their choice - they will need more $$$ to retire, and it will take them longer to get there. These blogs aren't saying you can have it ALL - the fancy new construction house with granite countertops and stainless appliances, lots of meals out, brand new cars PLUS retire early. They're promoting the idea that if you save every penny you can and forgo the consumer stuff in order to save and invest - you *might* be able to retire relatively young... if the market favors you. It is your choice to decide how much you want to spend/consume.

But don't cry out that it can't be done... because some folks are choosing to live uber-frugal, add a bit more risk to their portfolio than you might be comfortable with, and free themselves from the daily alarm clock and 8-5 drudgery.

If you think these blogs are saying it can happen without the effort - you'd be correct in saying it's a unicorn. But they are advocating a lifestyle that might be different than the one you are comfortable with - but is possible and might be the right choice for them. They are not saying it can happen without sacrifice.

(You is used in this post for all the critics posting in this thread.)

+1
Honestly, I feel like I need to double check to make sure I didn't accidentally log on to "Don'tRetireEarly.Org"

 

[FI by 2024]

If it's so easy how come college grads are not able to it? Because life happens. How many college grads can save. 8k a month.



And if a college grad pulls this amazing task off by age 32 why would they stop building wealth at 1 million to only produce an income level of the struggling middle class?



To blog and do a YouTube channel vs save 8 to 10k until age 42 and be broke proof ?

Why stop building wealth and go off and explore the world? Because they have enough for what they want and don't need any more.

There's an underlying assumption to this website that we value time and freedom more than we value amassing more wealth than necessary, isn't there? Or have I completely missed the point of this website all these years? Are we all here to talk about working until we have way, way more than we deem necessary? 'Cause that's not what I'm here to do.

If 1M+ wouldn't be enough for you, that's cool. If stopping work in your early 30s is too early for you, that's cool. But it's what they wanted. What is the problem?

 

[Sarah in SC]

+1
Honestly, I feel like I need to double check to make sure I didn't accidentally log on to "Don'tRetireEarly.Org"

I think you just gave a great blog idea to some of our members, lol. But who would read it?!?

Damn, on the Class A! I didn't get that update from the Internet retirement police bulletin. But the bus is a diesel, does that count?

Jeez Louise, different strokes for different folks. What Rodi said.

 

[RobbieB]

As always, they are doing it all wrong.

And people that are doing it right like to complain about the people that are doing it wrong.

Same as it ever was -

 

[aim-high]

My understanding is that people are objecting more to them (or the article writers) promoting this as retired when it seems more likely to many of us that they've chosen to live a nomadic, spartan lifestyle after banking a large sum of money and creating some side cash flow through blogging about it as "early retirement".

At this point, I really don't care. They've put it all out there. I hope their blog does well enough. Last post says they're down to 650K after purchasing the home. At 3-4% or as mrs. bruno put it, $20,400-$27,200/year. That's awfully skinny to last 50+ years. No kids yet. No health issues.

Speaking of blogging for income with affiliate marketing and so forth . . . I had a very interesting discussion today with a startup founder who's had one or two successful exits. We're wondering when the whole model collapses after reading articles on ad blockers and also realizing that it's a bit of a bubble. Overall there doesn't seem to be enough real product moving for the revenue that's going out -- then the FB's of the world begin to dominate and price out the smaller sites.

Fortunately the financial niche is one that has a better payout. If I were blogging about food or classical music -- there's not nearly as much money, regardless of the size of my audience.

 

[YVRRocketSurgery]

bclover, I was shocked to learn that a young friend of mine (well, sorta young, he's 28) is making $100k in Detroit, with an automotive engineering degree. Another youngster, about the same age, is in Seattle with a software engineering degree, is a bit higher.

Nowhere near that here in SC, or at least not in the crowds I hang with.

I was pretty shocked myself when my sibling told me my nephew who is 25yo, struggled through school but did make it through post secondary yet has a great personality and is fearless pulled in $90k last year in a sales and marketing postion. He's apparently living it up instead of saving. YOLO?

 

[purplesky]

I keep reading all the outcry here and keep wondering if I read the same article and blogs.

In the article linked in the OP, and on MMM, and our own Fuego's blog - they all push a singular message: If you cut your expenses, save money, and keep investing your savings... you can reach retirement at a younger age than is traditionally considered "normal". No one is saying you can live a more typical, consumer oriented lifestyle - (new homes, latest car either leased or purchased on credit, designer clothes and handbags, eating out every day at lunch, drinks every night with friends after work) that you'll be able to retire younger than FRA.

I look at some of the examples here on this board who've survived retiring younger than planned - but through frugal lifestyles - have stayed retired. Unclemick comes to mind. Major Tom comes to mind. They may not have been 30yo's... but they managed their spending and stayed retired.

It's all about choices. Some folks don't want to trim expenses as much as the Freedom with Bruno folks, or the MMM folks. That's their choice - they will need more $$$ to retire, and it will take them longer to get there. These blogs aren't saying you can have it ALL - the fancy new construction house with granite countertops and stainless appliances, lots of meals out, brand new cars PLUS retire early. They're promoting the idea that if you save every penny you can and forgo the consumer stuff in order to save and invest - you *might* be able to retire relatively young... if the market favors you. It is your choice to decide how much you want to spend/consume.

But don't cry out that it can't be done... because some folks are choosing to live uber-frugal, add a bit more risk to their portfolio than you might be comfortable with, and free themselves from the daily alarm clock and 8-5 drudgery.

If you think these blogs are saying it can happen without the effort - you'd be correct in saying it's a unicorn. But they are advocating a lifestyle that might be different than the one you are comfortable with - but is possible and might be the right choice for them. They are not saying it can happen without sacrifice.

(You is used in this post for all the critics posting in this thread.)

I called out MSN money for the click bait article about a couple who saved $1 million and supposedly retired in their early 30s.
My consumer alert/buyer beware goes off when I see these type headlines.


I don't think anyone has criticized their blog or message. Hopefully they generate traffic and earn income from their blog and I am guessing a you tube channel.

You might need to change the name of this website to
www.superearly-retirement.org

 

[uncaD]

Retiring in your 30's isn't some post-MMM millennial fantasy. Paul Terhorst wrote a book about it in the '80s


https://www.amazon.com/Cashing-Amer...1-1&keywords=cashing+in+on+the+american+dream

 

[Bestwifeever]

Eh, the couple in the OP got tons of clicks on their blog, including mine (and I never got into any of the "How I Retired Good" blogs so would never have clicked on their link if it weren't in a post here), so they get the last laugh.

 

[purplesky]

Why stop building wealth and go off and explore the world? Because they have enough for what they want and don't need any more.

There's an underlying assumption to this website that we value time and freedom more than we value amassing more wealth than necessary, isn't there? Or have I completely missed the point of this website all these years? Are we all here to talk about working until we have way, way more than we deem necessary? 'Cause that's not what I'm here to do.

If 1M+ wouldn't be enough for you, that's cool. If stopping work in your early 30s is too early for you, that's cool. But it's what they wanted. What is the problem?

Because they don't have that much investment income to go off and explore the world. World(any) Travel can be expensive.

There will be $$ limitations at 40k a year. If they let that $1 million ride for a decade thats where the portfolio magic really happens.
Plus the continued savings would equal big money.

We are talking about a huge difference in lifestyle choice. That is financial freedom that
they will want and need if they have kids.

Its not to buy stuff. It will give them freedom to maybe not sleep in a car at age 40.

Who the heck wants to retire at 30 with that little voice in your head wondering about your portfolio all the time. With the thought of going back to work at age 40 and starting over competing with college grads to get your old job back.



Most people on here laugh at a $1 million retirement. Not sure about the amassing more wealth than necessary idea.

Maybe this couple is expecting a big inheritance. :face palm:

 

[FI by 2024]

Because they don't have that much investment income to go off and explore the world. World(any) Travel can be expensive.



There will be $$ limitations at 40k a year. If they let that $1 million ride for a decade thats where the portfolio magic really happens.

Plus the continued savings would equal big money.



We are talking about a huge difference in lifestyle choice. That is financial freedom that

they will want and need if they have kids.



Its not to buy stuff. It will give them freedom to maybe not sleep in a car at age 40.



Who the heck wants to retire at 30 with that little voice in your head wondering about your portfolio all the time. With the thought of going back to work at age 40 and starting over competing with college grads to get your old job back.







Most people on here laugh at a $1 million retirement. Not sure about the amassing more wealth than necessary idea.



Maybe this couple is expecting a big inheritance. :face palm:

Your bias is showing.

Not everybody wants big money. Not everybody travels expensively (their method seems exceedingly cheap).

Who the heck wants to retire this way? This couple.

And while some (maybe not most) people on here would laugh at a 1M retirement, in the real world there are a lot of people who would kill to have that much money.

Again, just because it's not what you would want doesn't make it a bad idea, and it certainly doesn't make it a lie like you've been arguing. To claim these articles are lies when there are clearly people living this way is, in itself, a lie. Why do you care so much how this couple lives? Let it be.

 

[rodi]

We are talking about a huge difference in lifestyle choice.

Just emphasizing a word you used, but don't seem to understand.

And international travel can be cheap - especially if you drive and sleep in the car some of the time. My husband did that for 6 months when he was younger. He and friends pooled money and bought a used hatchback and some sleeping bags. They traveled on the cheap and had a GREAT time. When they got to France, headed to England, they sold the car and made a profit. It's not a choice you'd make (I assume) but it is possible to enjoy travelling like that.

Networth polls done here periodically - one less than a month ago here) That one included non-spendable assets (primary home for example) and didn't ask whether responders were retired.

More on point is a poll done a few years ago (2013) asking people what their "number" is - in other words - how much did they need to retire. Several ER.org members felt it was ok to retire with less than a million.

Not everyone needs a lifestyle of $100k or more. Heck - my family of 4 lives on $80k very comfortably in a super high COL area. Fuego's numbers impress the heck out of me - a family of 5 for 1/3 of what we're living on. There's a reason the dryer sheet thing lives on... Many folks here have figured out how to live very frugally (not me, necessarily... I have some significant trims I could make). And they've made the trade off of TIME > MONEY. It's a choice.

 

[purplesky]

Your bias is showing.

Not everybody wants big money. Not everybody travels expensively (their method seems exceedingly cheap).

Who the heck wants to retire this way? This couple.

And while some (maybe not most) people on here would laugh at a 1M retirement, in the real world there are a lot of people who would kill to have that much money.

Again, just because it's not what you would want doesn't make it a bad idea, and it certainly doesn't make it a lie like you've been arguing. To claim these articles are lies when there are clearly people living this way is, in itself, a lie. Why do you care so much how this couple lives? Let it be.

The lie is they are not retired. MSN money claims they are.

In the real world $1 million only produces a low middle-class wage. Not to mention inflation.

Its a trendy millennial gold rush fantasy that you can now just work 10 years and just ride off into the sunset and not work.

I think its actually funny people are buying this. Theres gold in them hills.

And travel gets expensive eventually.

They can do what they want. No worries.

 

[RobbieB]

So, the real problem is that they are traveling the world and having fun and making 50 grand a year writing about it and you're not?

 

[purplesky]

Just emphasizing a word you used, but don't seem to understand.

And international travel can be cheap - especially if you drive and sleep in the car some of the time. My husband did that for 6 months when he was younger. He and friends pooled money and bought a used hatchback and some sleeping bags. They traveled on the cheap and had a GREAT time. When they got to France, headed to England, they sold the car and made a profit. It's not a choice you'd make (I assume) but it is possible to enjoy travelling like that.

Networth polls done here periodically - one less than a month ago here) That one included non-spendable assets (primary home for example) and didn't ask whether responders were retired.

More on point is a poll done a few years ago (2013) asking people what their "number" is - in other words - how much did they need to retire. Several ER.org members felt it was ok to retire with less than a million.

Not everyone needs a lifestyle of $100k or more. Heck - my family of 4 lives on $80k very comfortably in a super high COL area. Fuego's numbers impress the heck out of me - a family of 5 for 1/3 of what we're living on. There's a reason the dryer sheet thing lives on... Many folks here have figured out how to live very frugally (not me, necessarily... I have some significant trims I could make). And they've made the trade off of TIME > MONEY. It's a choice.

Many people on here have pensions. I remember a thread where most people said no to just 40k in retirement income.

By age 40 most people do not enjoy the sleeping in the car thing.
Maybe for a few days but that gets old real quick.

Yes they chose time and thats cool. But is age 40 that big of a deal? They could still travel some during that time working longer.

They left maybe 2 million on the table. Its only money. But money does give people more options.