That brings up an interesting idea. Many people here are looking to build up enough net worth to be able to retire completely on a 4% or less SWR. For some, this may not happen until age 50 or 60.
Does it make more sense to consider a semi-retirement at a younger age, say 35 or 40, if you can take a 4% SWR and work less hours?
What is the goal anyway? Isn't it to maximize your total free time until date of death?
Very good question. It's one I've been pondering for the past few months. To try to keep it short, 3 possible options for me--age 35--are:
1. Continue to work 35-40 hrs/week until I have enough saved to live on a "safe" WR
2. Work multiple jobs or a higher paying & longer hours job to save more sooner
3. Work part time--either in a permanent position or odd jobs--and work less per month but for a longer working career
Option 2 is out for me. No way. If I had to, okay, but I've never liked the idea of working more than 40 hrs per week.
Option 1 is the default. It got me here--debt free and with tax-deferred savings in the amount of 2 years' expenses--and I'm most familiar with this path, and it's the path of my peers. (Well, the peers that aren't in debt.)
Option 3 is very tempting. I'm not sure how realistic it is, but I might be able to work just enough to cover expenses and let my nest egg grow until a later full retirement, or perhaps continue to work option 1 until some point several years from now and then take early withdrawls supplemented by working part time.
Ideally the part time work would be odd jobs instead of steady 20 hrs per week or such, because I'd want to be able to travel for several days to a couple of weeks and then work for a period of time.
I think you nailed the goal: maximize free time and enjoyment until time of death.
I keep wondering about the pitfalls of such an approach, but it sounds like a great idea.
