Is this Amount of Income Enough to Retire Early On?

[walkinwood]

The OP hasn't responded to any of the requests for more info, but has had the time to make posts in other threads. Not polite imho.

But the thread is a good read anyway.

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

Hey, you gotta be responsible for your own entertainment-- especially if the alternative is looking to the office environment for your social stimulation.

I can't imagine taking on a commitment that would interfere with my enjoyment of cycling, surfing, running, and reading books for the next five or six decades.

I think I was fairly clear that I don't want to work, work, work all the time either. The work environment is boring as well because anything you do and say will be used against you, so you end up saying the blandest and most meaningless things just to seem pleasant. Things like what Haha said about American women would get you hauled down to the basement in 5 minutes. I hold no illusion that the corporate office environment can supply me with 8 hours of interesting things to do much less supply me with 8x5x52x40 days of interesting things to do.

I am still searching for that balance of fun, exercise, and intellectual stimulation. I have yet to find it.

Well, speaking of interference with your fun, didn't you WRITE a book? I'd bet that took quite a bit of time. LOL.

 

[haha]

Things like what Haha said about American women would get you hauled down to the basement in 5 minutes.

Well, if I remember what you are talking about, it could better be seen as a failing on my part, where at times I am not fully able to submit to the dominance of some of our strong, independent American females.

My failing, not theirs!

Ha

 

[Danmar]

You get bored easily then, Buns? Good luck on your quest. Been totally retired for 4 years and hardly ever bored. Biking, skiing, reading, managing our portfolio, extensive travel, bombing around in our convertible in the rockies, workouts, taking care of parents, etc. Loving it.

 

[travelover]

...........
Considering this is a retirement forum, forcing dependent children to live a reduced lifestyle, just because you don't want to work anymore is irresponsible.............

I've gotta comment on this statement. Where I disagree is with the notion that things that you give a child are somehow more important than time. Several of the regular posters here who retired with minor children have done so to deliberately have more time to spend with their kids as they grow up. I can't think of a greater gift.

I don't have any kids, but I was a child. Speaking from my own experience, one of my greatest strengths is an appreciation of how hard work and initiative leads to material comfort and security. I feel that I got that awareness from an upbringing where the essentials were provided, but luxuries like a college education, a car and my own place were my own responsibility.

 

[Nords]

The OP hasn't responded to any of the requests for more info, but has had the time to make posts in other threads. Not polite imho.
But the thread is a good read anyway.

I think OP [-]was tired of the beatings[/-] felt that his question had been adequately answered without the additional details...

I think I was fairly clear that I don't want to work, work, work all the time either. The work environment is boring as well because anything you do and say will be used against you, so you end up saying the blandest and most meaningless things just to seem pleasant. Things like what Haha said about American women would get you hauled down to the basement in 5 minutes. I hold no illusion that the corporate office environment can supply me with 8 hours of interesting things to do much less supply me with 8x5x52x40 days of interesting things to do.
I am still searching for that balance of fun, exercise, and intellectual stimulation. I have yet to find it.
Well, speaking of interference with your fun, didn't you WRITE a book? I'd bet that took quite a bit of time. LOL.

Yeah, I'm not much of an exemplar for life balance. But my point is that it's more of a challenge to fulfill one's potential by being self-entertaining than to be seeking it from the workplace. Human beings are probably doomed to be perpetually oscillating about the sweet spot on the hedonic treadmill, and abdicating that fulfillment to an employer seems to make it that much more soul-sucking.

The error of my ways has been taking on self-imposed obligations. If I like something then I tend to attempt to do it to excess: workouts, taekwondo, home improvement, financial management, investing... even surfing. (I've been chugging 800-mg doses of ibuprofen all week due to taekwondo & surfing.) The key is avoiding deadlines whenever possible. Avoiding structure helps too.

The writing of the book took very little time. (I actually drafted the two final chapters during three evenings in Chicago on a family vacation when my spouse/daughter were watching TV.) What took the most time was coming up with topics and then researching them. Editing takes up a lot of time, too. However there were periods of 2-3 months (and a couple of 6-8 months) where I didn't even look at the book, much less work on it. (I'll always be grateful to all the posters who goaded me back to the keyboard by asking "So, Nords, how's the book coming?") I didn't have a workplace-imposed deadline, so I could be free to write when I had something to write-- instead of writing any ol' piece of crap to make a due date. Hence my jaundiced view of most of the retirement journalists & financial media.

I feel that paid employment produces much of the same deadline compromise of principles.

I've watched spouse volunteer for a non-profit where her time was first given for free, then her expenses were compensated, and finally she was put on the payroll. She hasn't netted any financial return from it since the day she started. She's actually lost money by paying the taxes on it and then donating the amount back to the non-profit. But nothing tests her commitment to the organization more than seeing them waste money on her (that could have gone to the beneficiaries) and knowing that she's donating it back to them-- perhaps to waste on someone else.

I've only been retired for eight years. It's statistically possible that during the next 50 or so I'll find a motive to return to work. But my "Want To Do" list is already so long that I don't think I'll ever have enough spare time for work... heck, I still haven't even filled out Ernie Zelinski's "Get-A-Life Tree".

Hmm. I'm going to have to work this commentary up into a blog post...

 

[BLS53]

Hey, you gotta be responsible for your own entertainment-- especially if the alternative is looking to the office environment for your social stimulation.

I can't imagine taking on a commitment that would interfere with my enjoyment of cycling, surfing, running, and reading books for the next five or six decades.


I think our responsibility to our dependents is to keep them at a minimum level of safety, shelter, food, and clothing. Basic security, perhaps a half-step ahead of Child Protective Services.

I used to think that we owed our kid(s) a basic college education, but I'm backpedaling even on that. These days I think that's a great way to make sure they launch out of the nest and don't boomerang, so subsidizing a kid's college is purely from my own selfish self-interest.

Anything above that subsistence level develops an attitude of entitlement and perhaps even affluenza. I don't see anything wrong with a reduced lifestyle because the alternative is far more difficult to "cure". I'd rather raise them on the confidence that they have the skill to survive on ramen & thrift stores, rather than leaving them ignorant of those survival tactics.

I also think that teaching a daughter to survive on her own will help her avoid a lifetime of seeking the security of a succession of sugar daddies. That may be my gender bias but it seems far more common with women than men. We have a neighbor's daughter going down that path, and I think I've seen how this movie ends...

The original question dealt with a $20K annual income, and while I agree with your post, I think the $20K is inadequate to raise a child. I know we're not talking about divorce here, but my personal experience is that the courts don't look favorably on an able bodied dad living on $20K passive income. I don't know if that is reflected in other child welfare situations, but I'd be real surprised if a 40 year old with a child, could sit around on a $20K pension without some social/government interference.

 

[BLS53]

I've gotta comment on this statement. Where I disagree is with the notion that things that you give a child are somehow more important than time. Several of the regular posters here who retired with minor children have done so to deliberately have more time to spend with their kids as they grow up. I can't think of a greater gift.

I don't have any kids, but I was a child. Speaking from my own experience, one of my greatest strengths is an appreciation of how hard work and initiative leads to material comfort and security. I feel that I got that awareness from an upbringing where the essentials were provided, but luxuries like a college education, a car and my own place were my own responsibility.

Again, we're talking $20K a year here. I'm not talking about someone hanging it up with a seven figure portfolio. I'm talking about subjecting a dependent child to a very low household income, because a parent can get buy on a modest retirement check.

As for teaching the child a work ethic, I would say the parent ERing on $20K, would be self-defeating in that respect.

 

[BLS53]

Maybe I can express this so it's more understandable to most here, and get out of my military pensioner mode.

Let's say you have a family with 2 kids. Household income is $80K a year. Mom and Dad are 40 years old, kids 10 and 12. Mom and Dad despise w*rk. Grandma dies leaving a $500K inheritance. Mom and Dad find this forum, and figure out the 4% SWR and all that good stuff. They have a talk with the kids, and tell them how Grandma has left all this money. And that they're quitting their jobs, selling the house, and are going to start living a frugal lifestyle.

Additional qualifiers: They have no other savings, and the home sale pays off the mortgage, with no equity remaining. They have no debts.

Interested in reading more opinions concerning this

 

[haha]

Maybe I can express this so it's more understandable to most here, and get out of my military pensioner mode.

Let's say you have a family with 2 kids. Household income is $80K a year. Mom and Dad are 40 years old, kids 10 and 12. Mom and Dad despise w*rk. Grandma dies leaving a $500K inheritance. Mom and Dad find this forum, and figure out the 4% SWR and all that good stuff. They have a talk with the kids, and tell them how Grandma has left all this money. And that they're quitting their jobs, selling the house, and are going to start living a frugal lifestyle.

Additional qualifiers: They have no other savings, and the home sale pays off the mortgage, with no equity remaining. They have no debts.

Interested in reading more opinions concerning this

My opinion is that unless the mother becomes a druggie, papa is heading either for another job or a divorce court.

In court and thereafter, he will see how most people in our society would look at this scenario.

A single man or even a childless couple can do whatever weird thing they please and unless they fail to cut their lawn or take out the garbage or create a nuisance of some sort society tends to disapprove but keep quiet about it.

Put a child in this equation and watch things change, especially if the little tyke attracts attention of his teachers or the police or even a neighbor.

A social fact is that single childless men are seen as throwaways, as are older childless women perhaps to a smaller extent. But anybody caring for a child, or any young woman, is a different proposition.


Ha

 

[walkinwood]

The OP hasn't responded to any of the requests for more info, but has had the time to make posts in other threads. Not polite imho.

But the thread is a good read anyway.

I offended the OP with this post and he has a point. I apologize.

 

[RonBoyd]

I offended the OP with this post and he has a point. I apologize.

He/she said that? You were accurate on all counts. What was the offensive part?

 

[BLS53]

My opinion is that unless the mother becomes a druggie, papa is heading either for another job or a divorce court.

In court and thereafter, he will see how most people in our society would look at this scenario.

A single man or even a childless couple can do whatever weird thing they please and unless they fail to cut their lawn or take out the garbage or create a nuisance of some sort society tends to disapprove but keep quiet about it.

Put a child in this equation and watch things change, especially if the little tyke attracts attention of his teachers or the police or even a neighbor.

A social fact is that single childless men are seen as throwaways, as are older childless women perhaps to a smaller extent. But anybody caring for a child, or any young woman, is a different proposition.


Ha

Exactly. That's the point I was trying to express originally. Somehow, a couple of posters isolated one paragraph of mine, and got off on a tangent about kids learning a work ethic. Which isn't related to the $20K question whatsoever. I think deciding to retire on $20K and making the kids part of the budget trimming process is wrong, and will one way or the other, gain the attention of the child welfare establishment.

 

[haha]

I think deciding to retire on $20K and making the kids part of the budget trimming process is wrong, and will one way or the other, gain the attention of the child welfare establishment.

And I have seen these folks at work. You do not want them in your family decisions so don't push your luck. So we see eye to eye on this BLS53.

Another thing to mention- what do people expect their kids to think about this situation? Some here seem to have an unusual degree of control over their children. But in ordinary American life, once a kid is in school parents are a fairly small part of a multifactorial equation. If one is more impressed by research than one's own observation, there is also plenty to support this. IMO the kids will suffer in many ways, even if there is state medical care and of course free schooling. The kids will likely not be pleased, at least as soon as they are old enough to understand.

Ha

 

[Nords]

The original question dealt with a $20K annual income, and while I agree with your post, I think the $20K is inadequate to raise a child. I know we're not talking about divorce here, but my personal experience is that the courts don't look favorably on an able bodied dad living on $20K passive income. I don't know if that is reflected in other child welfare situations, but I'd be real surprised if a 40 year old with a child, could sit around on a $20K pension without some social/government interference.

Maybe I can express this so it's more understandable to most here, and get out of my military pensioner mode.

Let's say you have a family with 2 kids. Household income is $80K a year. Mom and Dad are 40 years old, kids 10 and 12. Mom and Dad despise w*rk. Grandma dies leaving a $500K inheritance. Mom and Dad find this forum, and figure out the 4% SWR and all that good stuff. They have a talk with the kids, and tell them how Grandma has left all this money. And that they're quitting their jobs, selling the house, and are going to start living a frugal lifestyle.

Additional qualifiers: They have no other savings, and the home sale pays off the mortgage, with no equity remaining. They have no debts.

Interested in reading more opinions concerning this

Well, I don't have Ha's divorce experience, so my perspective may be [-]blissfully ignorant[/-] biased.

But you seem to equate a standard of living with spending a certain amount of money. There are plenty of ways to enjoy sufficient food, shelter, and love without spending money. In fact most Americans did it for the 18th & 19th centuries and part of the 20th before deciding that we needed to get off the farm. However even today you can find a copy of "Five Acres and Independence". Many Hawaii residents (Hawaiian or not) are proud to sustain the Hawaiian culture of subsistence living.

Two recent Mainland examples would be Dolly Freer and Amy Dacyczyn. IIRC Amy raised six kids on that income, and I doubt that Child Protective Services was willing to get up into her grille.

I'm pretty sure you could find similar examples among the Amish/Mennonites and many other fundamentalist American communities... let alone the overseas financial equivalents. I agree that most kids wouldn't want to live in that manner once they found a way to enjoy a more opulent lifestyle, but they're not mature enough to appreciate the reasoning behind the lifestyle.

When we ER'd we told our kid that we had enough in the budget for the important things like food, shelter, and school supplies. If she wanted extra stuff then she'd have to do jobs and save money. That logic has been augmented with a lot of more complicated vocabulary since she was eight years old, but the logic hasn't changed.

 

[haha]

The internet has made it much easier for people to get random information. As best I can tell, it has done nothing to help us get wisdom.