FI on the down low???

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Originally Posted by Martha

Manly men that they are, I am sure that they can take it. But I do think that male ERs are going to get on the average more questions about their status than female ERs.

I only get crap about it from a canadian that doesnt know what he's talking about 98% of the time. I can live with that. Otherwise, manliness is fully unaffected.



As far as the original topic, it probably helps that I dont give a crap about what other people think. If anyone asks what I do, I tell them I manage finances from home and play mr. mom while my wife works 2 days a week. I hardly ever get any more questions past that.

[setab]

There is another way to look at the spouse working thing. The five hours she works are the best part of my day and I don't mind doing a dish or two to keep it that way. I love my wife, and love being with her, but having a few hours all to myself is a major part of retirement I was looking forward to. Besides, she sure isn't working for money at the rate of $11 per hour. She retired from her profession five years ago and only works now because she likes what she's doing.

setab

[youbet]

Originally Posted by setab

I don't mind doing a dish or two to keep it that way.*

That's quite an effort on your part!* Modern woman underestimate the sacrifices we manly men make to insure their total liberation and position in society.

[setab]

Youbet,

Don't you hate it when we manly men are viewed just because of our manliness. We have minds too and a hug now and then would be nice.

setab

[Lusitan]

Originally Posted by Azanon

I dont think of either a man or a woman as being an "ER" in the sense that we discuss it here if the other spouse works. That'd be nothing more than a 1-income family. My parents were a one-wage earner family too (dad worked, mom didn't) all of my childhood.

Either my wife or I could do that today, if we really wanted to. But that would only prove that both of us make enough to support our family on our own.

So in this case, you'd just say "so-and-so is the breadwinner" to answer why are you not working.

Yeah, I guess what you call it all depends on your perspective, values, and lifestyle.

My wife and I pretty much do everything as a partnership - there is no "my money" and "her money". In the same sense, I don't expect there will be a "my retirement" and "her retirement". I won't retire if my wife still needs to work, although if she wants to work for fun or enjoyment (or to get away from me!), I won't stand in her way.

Maybe if we weren't both on-board with our savings goals and LBYM lifestyle, we would need to come to some agreement about the future where I want to FIRE and she is happy to work-and-spend until 65. It seems like it would be a good compromise if your spouse doesn't share your goal of retiring early. (Although I'd be worried about that kind of plan, given how divorces typically end up splitting assets 50-50.)

Couples handle finances in different ways - some use separate checking accounts and have "my bills" and "your bills" and that system works well for them; others work as a single financial enterprise. Those different approaches impact how we view FIRE as well.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

Yeah, I guess what you call it all depends on your perspective, values, and lifestyle.

Isn't it really just an accounting calculation?

If you are not working, by choice, and your spouse is working:

You're RE if you, with your fair share of the familiy assests, are FI.

You're simply "at home with a working spouse" if you yourself aren't FI.

Anyway, it's all basically semantics.* Sometimes it is handy, however, to know when someone is being supported by a working spouse when they are handing out advise on how to ER.* Hey, on this board we can't even agree on what "retired" means!* "I'm ER.* All I do is work 127 hours per week managing a string of troublesome rental properties" and on and on.

[Lusitan]

Originally Posted by youbet

Isn't it really just an accounting calculation?

If you are not working, by choice, and your spouse is working:

You're RE if you, with your fair share of the familiy assests, are FI.

You're simply "at home with a working spouse" if you yourself aren't FI.

Well it's the "you yourself" being FI (with your spouse "not being FI") based on a "fair share" approach that I think brings the non-accounting stuff into it. Just a different approach I guess - I can't see myself reaching a point where I say I've done my fair share and I am FI but my wife hasn't done her fair share yet so she is not FI and will need to keep working.

To me, we are either FI or not FI as a couple. If I look at it from an accounting perspective, the assets earned during the marriage for FI are marital assets to which we each have an equal claim - whether we've earned an equal amount or not. That also seems to be the default for how a court would split up assets in a divorce. So if a divorce would throw me out of FI (because really only I am FIRE, while my wife is still working full time to provide "her share") then I guess that doesn't seem like FI to me from an accounting perspective either.

But I agree - whatever we call it (the book Work Less, Live More calls it a "one-legged retirement") it's just semantics.

Interesting tangent: how do the FIRE-minded halves of dual-income marriages, who have reached some informal agreement with their non-FIRE spouses about "I'll work+save and FIRE, you work+spend and retire at 65" protect their FIRE dreams/assets from being destroyed by divorce?

This and other thoughts came to mind during this, my last semester in law school, while taking a family law class. Another issue that I thought about is how, if you divorce in your "big earning" years, the courts may order alimony to keep the non-working or lower-earning spouse at the same lifestyle that they enjoyed during the marriage.

So I posed the question in class - what about the couple who earn 150K per year but live on about 25K and sock away the rest into savings? What level of "lifestyle" would be the target for alimony support - a 25K lifestyle, or a 150K lifestyle? The answer, from my learned professor anyway, was that 150K would be the target, because courts will consider the savings as part of the lifestyle ...

Ouch. That could keep somebody working a high-pay and high-stress lifestyle permanently, or for much longer than they had ever planned, to support a "lifestyle" for a former spouse that neither had enjoyed or planned to enjoy, and wreck plans for FIRE.

I guess it's a very small percentage of Americans that would ever be in that situation, give our tendency to spend what (or more) than we earn, not less. But perhaps there is a small niche market out there for FIRE individual estate planning ...

So the lesson - don't divorce! (Or some would say - don't marry!).

Nobody (OK, almost nobody) plans to divorce when they marry, and I sure don't - but with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce in the U.S., it's something to think about. Those coming into marriage already with substantial assets probably have prenups, or at least have considered the pros and cons of a prenup to protect their assets. But those who earn their stash during the marriage ... be careful about thinking you're FI if your spouse isn't ...

[This is where I start putting the disclaimer that: this is not legal advice, I don't practice marital law nor do I intend to, and I have no idea what I am talking about. But you knew that already ]

[Nords]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

Interesting tangent: how do the FIRE-minded halves of dual-income marriages, who have reached some informal agreement with their non-FIRE spouses about "I'll work+save and FIRE, you work+spend and retire at 65" protect their FIRE dreams/assets from being destroyed by divorce?

Well, don't get divorced.

("Oh, officer, it's so horrible!* I was laying in bed and I heard a noise.* My husband didn't answer so I thought he was still asleep in bed with me.* I emptied my clip at the burglar and (*sob*) it was my husband!* He wasn't in bed with me after all!!* Oh, the holes in the mattress?* Well, you see, I was hiding on the floor on the other side of the bed and I must have shot through it at him, I mean the burglar... yeah, that's it!")

In our family the deal is that you can leave any time.* However the first one to leave has to take the kid with us.* I guess in five years, when we're "sure" that she's flown the nest, we'll have to renegotiate that deal for our 25th anniversary.

Both of us have been pretty equal in our careers.* She has her pension, I have mine.* We could probably eventually agree how to split everything else.* Of course her career has gone a bit farther than mine and her pension is a bit bigger, so I have some incentive to keep her happy!

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

Well it's the "you yourself" being FI (with your spouse "not being FI") based on a "fair share" approach that I think brings the non-accounting stuff into it.

Yeah, good point. You're still in law school, so you're picturing the "fair share" as still to be earned. In my case, we'll old, very old, and the saving is about done. I figured that in a divorce (oh please, no!) we'd each get half. We'd each still be FI, although with less margin than if we somehow manage to extend our current 36 year tenure.

The $150k/$25k scenario was very interesting.

youbet

[youbet]

My apologies if I should have placed this in the "funny joke thursday" folder but since we're talking marriage, sharing assests and FI, I thought it might go here too.

What Marriage is About...

He ordered one hamburger, one order of French* fries and one drink. The old man unwrapped the plain hamburger and carefully cut it in half.

He placed one half in front of his wife.

He then carefully counted out the French fries, dividing them into* two piles and neatly placed one pile in front of his wife.

He took a sip of the drink, his wife took a sip and then set the cup down between them. As he began to eat his few bites of hamburger, the people around them kept looking over and whispering.

You could tell they were thinking, "That poor old couple - all they can afford is one meal for the two of them."

As the man began to eat his fries a young man* came to the table. He politely offered to buy another meal for the* old couple. The old man said they were just fine - They were used to sharing everything.

The surrounding people noticed the little old lady hadn't eaten a* bite. She sat there watching her husband eat and occasionally taking turns sipping the drink.

Again the young man came over and begged them to* let him buy another meal for them. This time the old woman* said "No, thank you, we are used to sharing everything."

As the old man finished and was wiping his face neatly with the napkin, the young man again came over to the little old lady who had yet to eat a single bite of food and asked "What is it you are* waiting for?"

She answered "THE TEETH."

[newyorklady]

Originally Posted by Azanon

I dont think of either a man or a woman as being an "ER" in the sense that we discuss it here if the other spouse works. That'd be nothing more than a 1-income family. My parents were a one-wage earner family too (dad worked, mom didn't) all of my childhood.

Either my wife or I could do that today, if we really wanted to. But that would only prove that both of us make enough to support our family on our own.

So in this case, you'd just say "so-and-so is the breadwinner" to answer why are you not working.

I disagree. I am retired but that doesn't mean that I am not doing my share financially. instead of working a regular job, i make my money work for me. my husband works his job, and that is just fine with me.

[free4now]

What I've been telling people is "I'm off my savings on a barebones budget so I can stay free indefinitely".

[bearkeley]

Originally Posted by setab

The question I'm getting really tired of after only two months as an ER is "Are you getting bored yet?"* I am, but it's really only with the question.* I got rid of boredom when I retired from my boring job.

setab

Can I have some money

I hate you!

you lazy bum :P

And yes I am both bored (at work ) and Jealous of you're not going.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by newyorklady

I disagree.* I am retired but that doesn't mean that I am not doing my share financially.* , i make my money work for me.*

So, are you retired or working?

[newyorklady]

i am retired but my money is not.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by newyorklady

i am retired but my money is not.

Am I accurate in translating that as you are FI, independent of hubby, and enjoying FIRE? If so, congrats! I hope everyday is what you hoped it would be!

[newyorklady]

you got it. thanks.

[Martha]

I am originally from a very small town that is one of the poorer areas of my state. Once in a while I put on my small town hat and think "what would people in my home town think"?

If you are male or an unmarried female, less than about 60 years old, and you don't work, you are either rich, laid off, or "troubled." No one would ever use the word retired to describe a young person who doesn't work.