dex
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,105
As far as I can tell those links don't work - can you copy and past the article?
$1,000,000 and the clothes on your back
- Thread starter GTM
- Start date
P
PL
Guest
It looks like you have to register at the Dallas Morning News web site, www.dallasnews.com, for those links to work.
Normally I hate having to register, even if it is free, but in this case those with ER interests will find it very rewarding. Scott Burns is their personal finance columnist, and he writes quite a bit on ER related topics. I think all of his columns for the past several years are archived on the site.
Here, just for example, are the titles of his columns on "Living Lite." Burns certainly has a "low cost" vision of retirement, but that's probably the situation most people will be in.
Living Lite:
Hearing different drummers (May 2, 2004)
Liberty from gas pumps (April 27, 2004)
A house of cards in Vegas (April 25, 2004)
In Las Vegas, it's in the cards (April 20, 2004)
Putting a solution on wheels (April 18, 2004)
Unlocking the secret to an RV retirement (April 13, 2004)
RV parks can be a vision (April 10, 2004)
RV resorts, guests banking on value (April 5, 2004)
Growing older than Florida (April 3, 2004)
These aren't your typical RVs (March 30, 2004)
Retiring with ease in an RV (March 27, 2004)
Toyota's newest hybrid is a 'lite' driver's dream (March 27, 2004)
Life can be a beach for most (March 23, 2004)
Elite few can retire in luxury (March 21, 2004)
Florida housing market forecast: continued sunny (March 21, 2004)
Want to go sailing away? Here's how (March 16, 2004)
Margarita Portfolio: a new investment recipe (March 16, 2004)
Seeking a full life with less (March 14, 2004)
Spend Less and Retire Sooner (Feb. 8, 2004)
Think Beyond Money when Planning for Retirement (Jan. 29, 2004)
Less Cash, More Time to Spend (March 24, 2003)
For a Rich Retirement, Get a Life (Dec. 24, 2002)
Addiction to Wealth has a Cure (Oct. 27, 2002)
Will You Ever Have Enough Money?: The Overspent American (May 31, 1998)
Normally I hate having to register, even if it is free, but in this case those with ER interests will find it very rewarding. Scott Burns is their personal finance columnist, and he writes quite a bit on ER related topics. I think all of his columns for the past several years are archived on the site.
Here, just for example, are the titles of his columns on "Living Lite." Burns certainly has a "low cost" vision of retirement, but that's probably the situation most people will be in.
Living Lite:
Hearing different drummers (May 2, 2004)
Liberty from gas pumps (April 27, 2004)
A house of cards in Vegas (April 25, 2004)
In Las Vegas, it's in the cards (April 20, 2004)
Putting a solution on wheels (April 18, 2004)
Unlocking the secret to an RV retirement (April 13, 2004)
RV parks can be a vision (April 10, 2004)
RV resorts, guests banking on value (April 5, 2004)
Growing older than Florida (April 3, 2004)
These aren't your typical RVs (March 30, 2004)
Retiring with ease in an RV (March 27, 2004)
Toyota's newest hybrid is a 'lite' driver's dream (March 27, 2004)
Life can be a beach for most (March 23, 2004)
Elite few can retire in luxury (March 21, 2004)
Florida housing market forecast: continued sunny (March 21, 2004)
Want to go sailing away? Here's how (March 16, 2004)
Margarita Portfolio: a new investment recipe (March 16, 2004)
Seeking a full life with less (March 14, 2004)
Spend Less and Retire Sooner (Feb. 8, 2004)
Think Beyond Money when Planning for Retirement (Jan. 29, 2004)
Less Cash, More Time to Spend (March 24, 2003)
For a Rich Retirement, Get a Life (Dec. 24, 2002)
Addiction to Wealth has a Cure (Oct. 27, 2002)
Will You Ever Have Enough Money?: The Overspent American (May 31, 1998)
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Just to clear the air on the John Galt situation, since I'm the one that keeps bringing it up.
And John, I hope you dont feel like I'm picking on you, you're just persistent in telling part of the story.
The frequently issued post is "I retired on almost no money and dont invest in stocks and I'm doing fine".
The reality is "I retired on almost no money, married a working woman a year or so later, she's paying most or all of the bills, I own no stocks, and I'm doing fine".
The real reality is without the working wife, I would bet John would be dead broke by now. Despite good intentions, ingenuity, brilliant maneuvers, hard work, dedication, and good luck.
In other words, dont be encouraged to bail out on your job if you've got less than a half million unless you have a VERY short horizon, social security and pensions coming to you. Or you really, really like taking risks. On top of that, if your risk tolerance says "no stocks", think long and hard about doing it on less than a million, even with a horizon of 10 years or so.
The math just doesnt work out long term.
But those working wives are better than a COLA pension...lets make sure we acknowledge them for all their hard work and contributions...
And John, I hope you dont feel like I'm picking on you, you're just persistent in telling part of the story.
The frequently issued post is "I retired on almost no money and dont invest in stocks and I'm doing fine".
The reality is "I retired on almost no money, married a working woman a year or so later, she's paying most or all of the bills, I own no stocks, and I'm doing fine".
The real reality is without the working wife, I would bet John would be dead broke by now. Despite good intentions, ingenuity, brilliant maneuvers, hard work, dedication, and good luck.
In other words, dont be encouraged to bail out on your job if you've got less than a half million unless you have a VERY short horizon, social security and pensions coming to you. Or you really, really like taking risks. On top of that, if your risk tolerance says "no stocks", think long and hard about doing it on less than a million, even with a horizon of 10 years or so.
The math just doesnt work out long term.
But those working wives are better than a COLA pension...lets make sure we acknowledge them for all their hard work and contributions...
G
George W Clinton
Guest
From TH
The backstory is that JG is a "retired" Businessman or, member of "The Merchant Class", as Adam Smith
would call him.
He can't talk to anybody without lying about what he's "selling", or attempting to perpetrate a fraud if even in some minor, meaningless way. It's how most of them "make a living".
Like Safire said about Hillary... it's congenital. If your genes make you exceptionally big or fast, you go into professional sports. If your genes make you exceptionally smart, you go into science. If your genes make you lie to people about almost everything especially when you're talking about money, you become a businessman.
The backstory is that JG is a "retired" Businessman or, member of "The Merchant Class", as Adam Smith
would call him.
He can't talk to anybody without lying about what he's "selling", or attempting to perpetrate a fraud if even in some minor, meaningless way. It's how most of them "make a living".
Like Safire said about Hillary... it's congenital. If your genes make you exceptionally big or fast, you go into professional sports. If your genes make you exceptionally smart, you go into science. If your genes make you lie to people about almost everything especially when you're talking about money, you become a businessman.
R
R.H.
Guest
TH -- I'm glad you cleared the air with respect to J.G. I, too, don't want him to feel that he is being picked on. I don't post very often, but I read the threads on this board every day and I've always found J.G.'s posts to be thoughtful and welcome contributions. Further, I admire his courage to take the plunge without having what some would consider a robust nest egg. And, as far as the working wife, I have a working wife too. We're still saving for retirement, but I certainly couldn't make it without her, or if I tried, it would cost me another 10 years as a working stiff. My wife is younger than I and may very well decide to work after I retire. We haven't decided that one yet. But, if she elects to work, I'll gladly accept the additional income.
Regarding your premise that, as a general rule, it would not be wise to retire without at least a "half million" squirreled away . . . I understand your point, but I believe that "half million" would be a risky proposition in today investing environment. I'd think $750K was more like it. However, that's a personal choice everyone is entitled to make for themselves.
Regarding your premise that, as a general rule, it would not be wise to retire without at least a "half million" squirreled away . . . I understand your point, but I believe that "half million" would be a risky proposition in today investing environment. I'd think $750K was more like it. However, that's a personal choice everyone is entitled to make for themselves.
Thanks Jarhead. You and Cut-Throat commented that you see the point I'm making, and I appreciate it. John presents his situation in a very persuasive manner and I can see why these kinds of comments would be very appealing to potential ERs:Hey Bob:
I'm sure you noticed that even the 2nd. time around, H----- still missed the point. (Part of conversation is also the ability to listen).
This may be what some potential ERs want to hear, and I don't want to rain on their parade, but even John is living a lifestyle that would take at least $750,000 in assets to support (and I agree with you - that's probably on the low end). Perhaps he could survive at a much lower level, perhaps not. The problem is, we'll never know, because that's not the life he chose to live. If there's anything to be learned here it's probably this: John chose a lifestyle that would take at least $750,000 in assets to support and most of the rest of us did too - there are good reasons for this. For most people it will require serious money to ER.
For most people it will require serious money to ER.
I agree with this statement, Bob Smith. I do NOT agree with the statement you quote from John Galt that "nobody" needs $1 million to retire. A lot need a good bit more than $1 million. I don't have a problem with your $750,000 number for the amount it would take to support John Galt's level of spending if he didn't have the wife or Social Security to help out. I do not at all endorse the idea of proceeding to early retirement without first engaging in a lot of planning, including numbers-oriented planning. So I don't think that you and me are in disagreement on any core point.
The wrinkle that I was trying to add is that, when it is an early retirement you are planning, the numbers are not as stable as when you are putting together a plan for an old-age retirement. When you are retiring at age 65, you know whether you can count on the income supplied by a working spouse or not. And you know to a greater extent whether you can count on Social Security or not. You even can predict the results of your investment choices with greater accuracy. At age 65, you are probably only going to live for another 30 years at most. At age 40, you might have another 55 years ahead of you.
It's absolutely critical to analyze the numbers. It's tricky, though. The assumptions on which you base the numerical calculations are also critical. And, to some extent, the aspiring early retiree influences the assumptions at work. The early retiree who is highly flexible re his level of spending is in better circumstances than the one who is not. To the extent that you are flexible (or "motivated," in John Galt's langauge), you can reduce the amount you need to retire early by hundreds of thousands, by a lot more than most people intuitively think is possible.
I personally would never try to pull off what John Galt did. I remain impressed by the fact that he pulled it off, however. It can be argued that the numbers didn't work, but the approach worked, and I really do think that tells us something. It doesn't tell us that we should feel safe in trying to do the same. In other cases, it wouldn't work. But it tells us something all the same, in my view. John Galt is not the only poster we have heard from who has done something along the same lines. I can think of about half a dozen screen-names with similarly remarkable stories. I take these stories into account in my own planning without believing for a moment that it would be safe for me to follow the same practices.
My view is that numbers matter, and that other stuff matters too. And that different posters are able to offer us different sorts of insights on different sorts of questions. It sounds to me that John Galt has at times overstated his case, and that's unfortunate. But I still find his story to be one that offers some insight. But, again, I would urge all aspiring early retirees to spend a good bit of time and effort planning before taking any irreversible steps. It would be irresponsible for anyone to argue that it is OK to do otherwise, in my view.
I agree with this statement, Bob Smith. I do NOT agree with the statement you quote from John Galt that "nobody" needs $1 million to retire. A lot need a good bit more than $1 million. I don't have a problem with your $750,000 number for the amount it would take to support John Galt's level of spending if he didn't have the wife or Social Security to help out. I do not at all endorse the idea of proceeding to early retirement without first engaging in a lot of planning, including numbers-oriented planning. So I don't think that you and me are in disagreement on any core point.
The wrinkle that I was trying to add is that, when it is an early retirement you are planning, the numbers are not as stable as when you are putting together a plan for an old-age retirement. When you are retiring at age 65, you know whether you can count on the income supplied by a working spouse or not. And you know to a greater extent whether you can count on Social Security or not. You even can predict the results of your investment choices with greater accuracy. At age 65, you are probably only going to live for another 30 years at most. At age 40, you might have another 55 years ahead of you.
It's absolutely critical to analyze the numbers. It's tricky, though. The assumptions on which you base the numerical calculations are also critical. And, to some extent, the aspiring early retiree influences the assumptions at work. The early retiree who is highly flexible re his level of spending is in better circumstances than the one who is not. To the extent that you are flexible (or "motivated," in John Galt's langauge), you can reduce the amount you need to retire early by hundreds of thousands, by a lot more than most people intuitively think is possible.
I personally would never try to pull off what John Galt did. I remain impressed by the fact that he pulled it off, however. It can be argued that the numbers didn't work, but the approach worked, and I really do think that tells us something. It doesn't tell us that we should feel safe in trying to do the same. In other cases, it wouldn't work. But it tells us something all the same, in my view. John Galt is not the only poster we have heard from who has done something along the same lines. I can think of about half a dozen screen-names with similarly remarkable stories. I take these stories into account in my own planning without believing for a moment that it would be safe for me to follow the same practices.
My view is that numbers matter, and that other stuff matters too. And that different posters are able to offer us different sorts of insights on different sorts of questions. It sounds to me that John Galt has at times overstated his case, and that's unfortunate. But I still find his story to be one that offers some insight. But, again, I would urge all aspiring early retirees to spend a good bit of time and effort planning before taking any irreversible steps. It would be irresponsible for anyone to argue that it is OK to do otherwise, in my view.
ShokWaveRider
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Soooooo, is the moral of this story, and the general consensus (SP) is that you CANNOT live comfortably with $1m and the clothes on your back? I think so. $1m and a paid for home of some description appears to be the reality. Furniture, a car and a few more clothes, (on yours and your SO's back with even more in some closets) also appears to be helpful. And Not to mention health care. At least if you plan on spending your ER days and nights in the Good Ol' US of A.
Now, who will win the election? Arghhhhhhhhhh! And will it affect us ERs?
SWR
Furniture, a car and a few more clothes, (on yours and your SO's back with even more in some closets) also appears to be helpful. And Not to mention health care. At least if you plan on spending your ER days and nights in the Good Ol' US of A.Now, who will win the election? Arghhhhhhhhhh! And will it affect us ERs?
SWR
Exactly TH:
This will definantly be my last post on the subject.
Anybody that has been on this board for close to a year, I believe has figured out the "John Galt" story, and the appeal that it may have to a 40 year old that is "up to his butt in alligators", and looking for a way to get out of the swamp.
There are so many different combinations of situations that it is hard to pigeon-hole an amount required.
My personal situation was very typical of my counter-parts when I retired. I had 2 children that would be counting on me for help. (Buying first home, etc.). My widowed mother that was trying to get by on social security that I was helping out.
If you are in line for an inheritence, Younger wife working, have a defined benefit program retirement in the future, etc.,etc. the numbers aren't quite as important.
When I decided to retire, it was with the thought that I had enough assets to carry me and my family.
It will be 18 years in May that I retired. (Best years of my life).
With the thought in mind that the majority of the posters on this board fall roughly into my category,
if you don't have close to $l,000,000 and a paid for house (close call even at that, if you're less than 50),
stick around for a few years. (Retirement is not that much fun, if you"re agonizing about money).
Good luck to you all, Jarhead
4.
I also 2nd that these postinsg are not meant to be critical of JG but to clear up some important points to prospective ERs like myself.
I was trying to convey the same observations in my earlier post but you and Bob_Smith were a lot clearer.
Thanks
MJ
P
PL
Guest
No, that's not my view of the consensus at all. I'd say that the thing we've decided is that individual circumstances are so varied as to make the answer entirely dependent on the circumstances.
For those who might not have given up hope yet, another helpful reference is Ralph Warner's book, Get a Life: You Don't Need a Million to Retire Well. It's not about ER, but has useful information for retires of all ages.
Of course, Paul Terhorst's book, Cashing in on the American Dream: Retire
at 35 is full of absolutely fantastic insights.
In short, do the research, run the numbers, and make up your own mind.
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
As I remember, Terhorsts retired in 1984 with $400,000. I don't know what that is in today's $, and I forgot the url to get that info, but I believe that would be in the neighborhood of $800,000 to $one million today. It is 20 years, some with pretty high inflation. When they retired they were risk averse, wanted to avoid equities, and had 8% CDs readily available. Later, when interest rates were lower, a friend helped them get started with mutual funds, and they experienced the high returns that characterized the 90s.
They had no children, nor did they want any. there was no mention of obligations to parents, so I assume that their parents were OK, or Terhorsts didn't consider their parents problems to be in any way related to them.
They were OK with living largely outside the US. They were OK going bare with health insurance, or at least going bare with regard to US coverage. They were OK with having no home base. On their website they stated that their attitude with respect to health care might give them some "hard choices" down the road.
In short, it appears that they knew what they were doing, and were clearsighted as to what it could mean. Also, it appears that they were unemcumbered, and they had a fair amount of money when adjusted for subsequent inflation. They also had the wind at their backs in the investment sphere. Lastly and maybe most importantly, both Paul and Vicki seem to be of one mind about these things, at least as far as they have published.
So maybe their experience is not too helpful to many who might be considering a low capital ER today.
I am with Jarhead, Bob Smith, TH and others who have pointed out that for someone in a bad work situation, it is easy to believe anything that shows him light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe he doesn't look very critically at plans that seem to promise escape.
But sometimes it might be lot better to change jobs than to quit. Or if that isn't possible, to de-stress in some other way that will allow you to rack up some more money before leaving.
Personally, I took a lot of financial risks getting to ER. But I was young, and could have gone back to work if I had to. But now, even though I am much closer to SS, and also, unfortunately to my exit from this lovely existence, I don't want to take so many risks. It might be my age, it might be that I accurately feel that the risk/reward out there today is inferior to the past, I don't really know.
But having a pretty good margin is a nice calmative.
Mikey
Seems to me cc had a key point here: if you are only trying to use your portfolio to 'bridge' yourself a few years until you get to SS payments, and those SS payments will cover your lifestyle needs, then throw the SWR analysis out the window. All you need is enough cash to cover Expenses x # years to SS and you're done.
My analysis make me believe that using systems like 25x annual spending or 4% SWR etc. to determine needed financial assets are approrpriate for those who are a) young ERs, or b) long-gened ERs and who either have no pension coming or don't trust that the pension (or SS System) will be there for them. (Think what it must feel like to be a 55-year-old Delta pilot right about now). Also, if your spending needs/levels are well-in-excess-of SS payments, you also need your portfolio withdrawals to subsidize that additional spending, requiring some sort of SWR analysis.
So in a sense, John Galt could simply spend down his remaining assets between now and SS, (which is any day now, I think?) and whatever he has left is gravy.
I've thought for awhile now that we should break ER financial planning into two stages: from now-to-SS/Pension and from Pension date forward. If you aren't planning for heirs and SS/Pension covers your expenses, you only really need your assets to cover you for the first part, making the job much easier.
I am thinking that differences in these situations/spending as a % of Social Security/pensions/need for excess security are at the root of this and many other disagreements here about how safe we feel with SWR and how much $ we need to ER etc.
ESRBob
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Just to be even clearer, I'm not suggesting that a half mil is a viable premise...in fact I think 800k-1m and a fairly moderate lifestyle is about the bare minimum...its just that John and the Troll (which is his intent in tinkering on this thread, in case nobody 'gets it') both retired on LESS than the half mil, dont invest in stocks and i'm fairly sure wouldnt make it on their own without encountering some problems.
The original statement, supported by many other posters above, is for the 40-ish or 50-ish retiree, more than 7-8 years away from SS, pensions, tapping large 40x plans, etc...should consider carefully before pulling the plug with less than a half mil. A mil is more like it.
Bearing in mind that lifestyle and personal choice DO make a big difference. Living in Cut-Throats RV on a river somewhere or in that holey shotgun shack and hunting for your food...well then a quarter mil might do you.
Living the lifestyle that most probably accompanies the income levels required to put aside a quarter to half million before age 50...I dont think a family accustomed to that decides that living like the beverly hillbillies (prior to the bubblin' crude) is a good choice in order to stop working indefinitely. But geez, they might.
Saying a good middle class lifestyle is doable on a sliver of that with a little ingenuity and perseverance or a magic tool...well...sounds like the subject of a good book and I'll check back in with you in ten years to see how you're doing at the group home or in the cardboard box..
Its especially disingenuous when you consistently leave out the other income sources that are paying the bills.
I acknowledge my loving and loveable working wife, who I married three years into a successful single ER (that mathematically should have worked had I stayed single) for paying most of our regular bills, allowing us to build on our portfolio and retirement accounts, ASSURE a very successful long term retirement, and enable her to retire early when SHE's ready, with comfort.
J
Jax
Guest
I don't know about others in the same age bracket but at 41, I'm not counting on either SS or pension (even with a respectable Fortune 500 company) since they are too far off in the future and therefore, too much uncertainty to factor into planning. I do appreciate the reality that this thread represents to prospective or newly ERs. One other factor to consider is that if you just have yourself to consider that it is somewhat easier with a 1MM - 2MM target vs. having a non working spouse and/or child/children/high maintenance pets to support and deal with emotionally and financially.
its just that John and the Troll (which is his intent in tinkering on this thread, in case nobody 'gets it') both retired on LESS than the half mil, dont invest in stocks and i'm fairly sure wouldnt make it on their own without encountering some problems.
I'm not a troll, but I feel a need to respond to this for accuracy's sake. I have $400,000 in investment assets, plus full ownership of a house worth $300,000. If you translate that into a dollar figure comparable to the $1 million figure used in the thread-starter (where the assumption is that all assets other than the clothes on one's back were sold for cash), the number would be $700,000.
I did not retire from the work of work, only from the world of corporate employment. My plan assumes $10,000 of annual earnings from the writing work I do full-time. If you use the Multiply-by-25 rule to translate the $10,000 of annual income into an additional accumulated cash number, that's another $250,000, for a total of $950,000. The $10,000 earnings assumption is a mimumum expectation, so in all likelihood I will be able to enjoy a lifestyle well in excess of what someone with $1 million and the clothing on his back could enjoy.
It is accurate to say that I am not invested in stocks today. However, I think it is misleading not to note that stocks are my favorite asset class and that I intend to be invested heavily in stocks once they provide a safe withdrawal rate consistent with my 4 percent take-out number. I studied the historical data in the mid-90s to determine the SWRs that apply for the various asset classes, and I came to conclusions similar to those put forward by William Bernstein in his book "The Four Pillars of Investing." William Bernstein is not unaware of the growth potential associated with stock investments made at times of low and moderate valuation levels, and neither am I.
I'm not a troll, but I feel a need to respond to this for accuracy's sake. I have $400,000 in investment assets, plus full ownership of a house worth $300,000. If you translate that into a dollar figure comparable to the $1 million figure used in the thread-starter (where the assumption is that all assets other than the clothes on one's back were sold for cash), the number would be $700,000.
I did not retire from the work of work, only from the world of corporate employment. My plan assumes $10,000 of annual earnings from the writing work I do full-time. If you use the Multiply-by-25 rule to translate the $10,000 of annual income into an additional accumulated cash number, that's another $250,000, for a total of $950,000. The $10,000 earnings assumption is a mimumum expectation, so in all likelihood I will be able to enjoy a lifestyle well in excess of what someone with $1 million and the clothing on his back could enjoy.
It is accurate to say that I am not invested in stocks today. However, I think it is misleading not to note that stocks are my favorite asset class and that I intend to be invested heavily in stocks once they provide a safe withdrawal rate consistent with my 4 percent take-out number. I studied the historical data in the mid-90s to determine the SWRs that apply for the various asset classes, and I came to conclusions similar to those put forward by William Bernstein in his book "The Four Pillars of Investing." William Bernstein is not unaware of the growth potential associated with stock investments made at times of low and moderate valuation levels, and neither am I.
They are absolutely no hero"s of mine.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to some of the criticisms you offer re the Terhorsts, ex-Jarhead. I'm not 100 percent in agreement with those criticisms, either. I think that the issues raised by your criticisms of them are too complex to permit a satisfying examination of them in this thread.
The only oberservation I will offer here is that it is important to distinguish moral commentary re the Terhorst lifestyle from evaluations of the money advice set forth in the "Cashing in on the American Dream" book. The book is a powerful piece of work, in my assessment. Even if I did not feel comfortable with the lifestyle lived by the Terhorsts, I would feel comfortable recommending the book, which can be used by readers to pursue all sorts of lifestyles very different from the one pursued by the Terhorsts.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to some of the criticisms you offer re the Terhorsts, ex-Jarhead. I'm not 100 percent in agreement with those criticisms, either. I think that the issues raised by your criticisms of them are too complex to permit a satisfying examination of them in this thread.
The only oberservation I will offer here is that it is important to distinguish moral commentary re the Terhorst lifestyle from evaluations of the money advice set forth in the "Cashing in on the American Dream" book. The book is a powerful piece of work, in my assessment. Even if I did not feel comfortable with the lifestyle lived by the Terhorsts, I would feel comfortable recommending the book, which can be used by readers to pursue all sorts of lifestyles very different from the one pursued by the Terhorsts.
yakers
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
They had no children, nor did they want any. there was no mention of obligations to parents, so I assume that their parents were OK, or Terhorsts didn't consider their parents problems to be in any way related to them.
Mikey: Excellent post.
The Terhorsts were hedonistic, and felt no obligation to their non-existant children, or their parents.
If you feel like you can go through life with this thought in mind, and end up feeling good about yourself, write books, etc. then o.k. (Most of us can't).
They are absolutely no hero"s of mine, and I'm sure that one day they will understand that there is more to life than bragging about living an alternate life-style, and everyone else be damned!
Regards, Jarhead[/quote]
Some of you guys are really hard to please. My opinion (and isn't that what the internet is for?) is that no one has a perfect plan for me (probably not even me) but there are good ideas in different people's stories. I agree that Terhorst is not fully socially involved. While traveling widely he and his wife seem to live a bit of a hermetic life, like The Accidental Tourist? Their life plan does not address dependents or relations with others. But it may empower others who have such a plan as to means to support it. What I would have personally preferred to see is more of the story of how they related to the people in the various countries they lived in. The interaction could be charitable, artistic, educational or, dare I say it, political. But I do not live by economics alone. But to learn that someone can develop the means to live independently and be a perpetual traveler is has been a valuable lesson.
If I want to give credit for lessons Joe Dominguez deserves a bunch. (And may lightning not strike me down that I find myself in agreement with Mr. H on something.) It is not that his plan is so economically great but he was a pioneer in the wilderness letting people know that sometimes their work life was killing them. I assume whoever takes their inspiration would put together their own financial plan. Its really the idea that you build up funds and then they work for you. I know it is a perennial lesson like The Richest Man In Babylon, but countless people never hear this lesson and continue not planning, not saving, borrowing and consuming. Shifting the way I look at money is probably a more serious contribution to my financial solvency than a large gift of money.
Just my two cents, but go easy on Joe, I have a warm place in my heart for him even if I don't agree with his financial investments.
Mikey: Excellent post.
The Terhorsts were hedonistic, and felt no obligation to their non-existant children, or their parents.
If you feel like you can go through life with this thought in mind, and end up feeling good about yourself, write books, etc. then o.k. (Most of us can't).
They are absolutely no hero"s of mine, and I'm sure that one day they will understand that there is more to life than bragging about living an alternate life-style, and everyone else be damned!
Regards, Jarhead[/quote]
Some of you guys are really hard to please. My opinion (and isn't that what the internet is for?) is that no one has a perfect plan for me (probably not even me) but there are good ideas in different people's stories. I agree that Terhorst is not fully socially involved. While traveling widely he and his wife seem to live a bit of a hermetic life, like The Accidental Tourist? Their life plan does not address dependents or relations with others. But it may empower others who have such a plan as to means to support it. What I would have personally preferred to see is more of the story of how they related to the people in the various countries they lived in. The interaction could be charitable, artistic, educational or, dare I say it, political. But I do not live by economics alone. But to learn that someone can develop the means to live independently and be a perpetual traveler is has been a valuable lesson.
If I want to give credit for lessons Joe Dominguez deserves a bunch. (And may lightning not strike me down that I find myself in agreement with Mr. H on something.) It is not that his plan is so economically great but he was a pioneer in the wilderness letting people know that sometimes their work life was killing them. I assume whoever takes their inspiration would put together their own financial plan. Its really the idea that you build up funds and then they work for you. I know it is a perennial lesson like The Richest Man In Babylon, but countless people never hear this lesson and continue not planning, not saving, borrowing and consuming. Shifting the way I look at money is probably a more serious contribution to my financial solvency than a large gift of money.
Just my two cents, but go easy on Joe, I have a warm place in my heart for him even if I don't agree with his financial investments.
Regarding the Terhorsts: I felt the money advice was the weakest part of their book -- borne out of a period when 8% treasuries seemed conservative -- and that even if you had been willing to live like a student for the rest of your life, their financial advice would not have stood the test of time. Fortunately for the Terhorsts, they got into stocks and commodities in the 90s, and may have revised their financial advice if there had been a second edition of the book. The financial advice seemed particularly naive for someone like myself who has kids, notwithstanding his advocating moving to North Carolina to get the kids into a good state school cheap.
I did not feel any moral pangs about their lifestyle, however: they are consenting adults who chose not to have, or were unable to have children, and wanted to live the perpetual traveller lifestyle. I don't see how any of us could have a problem with that. As far as their ability to provide elder care, I have no knowledge of their situations, but I suspect given all their travelling and flexibility, they have as much time to be with elderly parents as any of us (who don't live in the same vicinity as our parents).
Aside from that, I thought the book was funny and easy to digest, and made the point well that, Carpe Diem, ER can work and we should seriously consider it. It certainly set my feet on the path.
ESRBob
I did not feel any moral pangs about their lifestyle, however: they are consenting adults who chose not to have, or were unable to have children, and wanted to live the perpetual traveller lifestyle. I don't see how any of us could have a problem with that. As far as their ability to provide elder care, I have no knowledge of their situations, but I suspect given all their travelling and flexibility, they have as much time to be with elderly parents as any of us (who don't live in the same vicinity as our parents).
Aside from that, I thought the book was funny and easy to digest, and made the point well that, Carpe Diem, ER can work and we should seriously consider it. It certainly set my feet on the path.
ESRBob
I felt the money advice was the weakest part of their book -- borne out of a period when 8% treasuries seemed conservative
OK, ESRBob. I didn't mean the investing advice in the book. I was referring to Terhorst's discussion of how he came to realize that, by selling high-maintenance assets (his house, his cars, etc.), he could afford to live the rest of his life without benefit of a paycheck. There aren't many books that explore these sorts of questions in depth.
I feel that I owe at lot to Dominguez for his insights, to Terhorst for his, to Amy Dacyzen for hers, and to the authors of "The Millionaire Next Door" for theirs. Each of these four books provided me with breakthrough insights that I put to use in the development of my plan, and I am grateful for the work these authors did in helping me realize my life goals. Any faults that I have found with any of these four books are small stuff compared to the benefits I realized by tapping into the knowledge they provided me.
I owe the authors of these four works a big debt. That doesn't mean that I think they should be above criticism. It does mean that I feel a need from time to time to make note of the other side of the story when I see them being criticized in what I view as excessively harsh terms.
OK, ESRBob. I didn't mean the investing advice in the book. I was referring to Terhorst's discussion of how he came to realize that, by selling high-maintenance assets (his house, his cars, etc.), he could afford to live the rest of his life without benefit of a paycheck. There aren't many books that explore these sorts of questions in depth.
I feel that I owe at lot to Dominguez for his insights, to Terhorst for his, to Amy Dacyzen for hers, and to the authors of "The Millionaire Next Door" for theirs. Each of these four books provided me with breakthrough insights that I put to use in the development of my plan, and I am grateful for the work these authors did in helping me realize my life goals. Any faults that I have found with any of these four books are small stuff compared to the benefits I realized by tapping into the knowledge they provided me.
I owe the authors of these four works a big debt. That doesn't mean that I think they should be above criticism. It does mean that I feel a need from time to time to make note of the other side of the story when I see them being criticized in what I view as excessively harsh terms.
C
Cut-Throat
Guest
All of these people - Terhorsts, Joe D., Amy D., M. Next Door - Specialize in living cheaply and not investing wisely. This part did not appeal to me.
I like the idea of living well (which usually means not cheaply)
This usually involves being more investment savvy than making popsicles out of empty jam jars - Yech! 
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Haha. Great point. I think I wasn't clear. I don't criticize Terhorsts at all- I was just trying to point out that there are certain conditions embedded in what they were able to do that some people may not see right away.
Personally, I couldn't exist that way, I need more background steadiness. I would need a home base, probably one that I owned. I remember reading somewhere that many people of Irish ethnicity feel this way. I might be a holdover from the English atrocities against them that deprived them of their land base.
Also, I figured out a long time ago that my self esteem is dependent in part on how I act with respect to others. I have some room, but maybe not as much as I might need for a full court drop-out type retirement.
So my comments were more along the lines of caveats than criticisms.
Mikey
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
All of these people - Terhorsts, Joe D., Amy D., M. Next Door - Specialize in living cheaply and not investing wisely. This part did not appeal to me.
I like the idea of living well (which usually means not cheaply)
Amen Brother Cut-Throat. A person can fish for salmon in Alaska, or for suckers in the polluted creek out back. Unless you are 5 years old, it just isn't the same.
Mikey
Hyperborea
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
How do we know that the Terhorsts' parents had as many children as ex-Jarhead would approve of? We know that he disapproves of those with zero children. Is 1 enough? Is it 12? Is it as many as you can produce as quickly as you can? What about the Terhorsts' obligations to those non-existent siblings? How about the non-existent children of their non-existent siblings? Do the Terhorsts' (or anybody existent or not) have any obligation to ex-Jarhead's goal of increasing the mass of human flesh occupying the planet?
Is the only purpose for our existence to increase the rate at which the human race over populates the planet?
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Interesting question. There is a whole field of academic inquiry known as sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology which says more or less that people and even societies are just tools of genes. The genes are in charge, the people are just the means.
On a personal level, I thought I didn''t want children. Too much trouble; I'd have to get involves with PTA, teachers, pediatricians and other boring things. I'd have to give up or cut down on trips to Mexico....Blah..blah.
Then I met a guy who did outboard repair at a place where I took my scuba tanks to be filled. We started diving together. Eventually I found out that this guy who was only a few years older than me and had no where near as good a job as mine had twelve children.
I may be weird, but it hit me like a ton of bricks- If he can have 12 kids, certainly I can handle a few. I am really glad for that realization, because I am very happy that we were able to and and did have a couple of kids.
Mikey
