We are living a lie...

[Lewis Clark]

Thing is, RE is not just one decision. Each day, every one of us could throw in the towel and decide to go back to work.

I've been retired for 5014 days, if I calculated it right just now. I have made the decision to stay retired each and every one of those days, based on the fact that I love being retired.

Gee, W2R, you make retirement seem like an awful lot of work. : )

 

[retire48in2018]

We had little savings until at age 29 - we realized the stupidity of our plan. We had a negative net worth.

We went totally crazy, and went down to living on less than 25%, and saving 75%. We did that for maybe 17 years and then we were in a position to retire early. Worked another 5 years anyway, maybe relaxed to living on 33%, saving 66%.

I am saying that to say - if you save 75% for 20 years, you probably can FIRE. If your expectation is living on that same (or better) 25% lifestyle.

But most - want to live on closer to 75% of income and not 25%. That needs a lot more than 20 years.

 

[W2R]

Thing is, RE is not just one decision. Each day, every one of us could throw in the towel and decide to go back to work.

I've been retired for 5014 days, if I calculated it right just now. I have made the decision to stay retired each and every one of those days, based on the fact that I love being retired.

Gee, W2R, you make retirement seem like an awful lot of work. : )

It's terrible, I tell you!

 

[frayne]

I hope he and Dave Ramsey both discourage the masses from taking control of your finances and keep on working until the day of your funeral. I always seem to notice a tad bit of jealousy in most of these type articles.

 

[youbet]

I doubt it, but I did not read the whole article...



I believe in FIRE... but as mentioned above I guess my definition of RE is not theirs... I think 55 to 60 is still RE...

Yep, the author is talking about what you and I would call extreme ER. Work at a well paid job for a decade or so, save most of what you earn and then retire living off passive income.

There are several folks posting here on the forum who have done extreme ER (40’s) and their stories are really fascinating and I enjoy reading about their diverse paths to FIRE success.

But it seems like the bulk of us are more tuned into the FI part of FIRE more than the RE part and wait until our 50’s or even later to completely wean ourselves from earned income.

 

[dheb]

There are a few caveats mixed in with the garbage.

Determining your "expenses" and Desired Retirement income properly is important. My girlfriend just bought a new refrigerator to replace the broken one and I'm in process of buying a new hot tub for the same reason.

And I travel quite a bit more with 52 weeks a year available.

So how do you figure your sustainable retirement income need?
It's not that easy...

I built an extra $1400 a month into my budget that I call "contingency spending." An appliance breaks, the cat has an emergency vet appt, that sort of thing. I rarely use all (or even most) of it, but I put the amount I haven't used in a separate account each month, and I can draw on that account for larger "surprise" expenses, and when there's enough in the account, I can pull some out for fun stuff like travel.

 

[Mr Gadget]

AS always, it depends on the circumstance. The article is a way to draw in people who are interested in beginning financial planning from a bunch of "planners' in UT looking for new "customers." Some good, some blatantly bad advice, like others have mentioned. But I disagree with its title, because I'm a perfect example why FIRE does work and the title is incorrect. Especially how if you read all the way through it, it documents that there is a way to do so.



Interesting to see if the Mods censor some of this post as well, oh well I don't spend enough time posting here or on other social media, too busy living my retired life.

 

[imnontrad]

For many, the acronym really is Financial Independence - Refocus Energy. Many work to become financially independent and then start working in a field they really love, even though that income is not as high.

 

[TickTock]

Most here work on and on and on past today’s millennial definition of FIRE, myself included. Many here seem to be following Rampton’s lead and holding off on RE until their 50’s and, yes, some even into their 60’s.

Why?

I'll answer for myself and DW - we simply didn't have the nest egg to retire earlier (DW is retired, I'm still w*rking) sooner. And we're financially conservative, we wanted <4% WR to fund a longer retirement. If we'd went the Kaderli route, we'd have retired years ago.

What is ER? To me, either before 62 (eligibility for SS) or 65 (eligibility for Medicare). So I definitely consider 50's as ER, and up to 61 or 64 as well.

 

[Route246]

I'm 66. I worked and worked and worked and still work. I went back and checked our net worth and I reached RE status at about age 59 without even realizing it. Never gave it a thought because I'm in a role and career path where every year has been maximum earning power, even at 66. I blew right past RE and now I'm trying to figure out how to RL (retire late?). I'm in a groove, workwise and quite satisfied with it even though as some said here I am trying to be richest guy at the cemetery. I told this to my wife and she agreed and laughed about that. Working at a job I like and having many times over FU money is somehow very satisfying. I read the article and agree with most of the substantive metrics and I see how his sentiment might rub people the wrong way but that is the nature of clickbait.

I'm not one to burn bridges or show anger at work so FU has never been needed to pull out but it is there in case I need it. That much is enough for now until I plan my escape to RL.

 

[marinauser]

As noted above - DUE - the website where the article is published - is an annuity company - probably enough said.

 

[Texas Proud]

I'm 66. I worked and worked and worked and still work. I went back and checked our net worth and I reached RE status at about age 59 without even realizing it. Never gave it a thought because I'm in a role and career path where every year has been maximum earning power, even at 66. I blew right past RE and now I'm trying to figure out how to RL (retire late?). I'm in a groove, workwise and quite satisfied with it even though as some said here I am trying to be richest guy at the cemetery. I told this to my wife and she agreed and laughed about that. Working at a job I like and having many times over FU money is somehow very satisfying. I read the article and agree with most of the substantive metrics and I see how his sentiment might rub people the wrong way but that is the nature of clickbait.

I'm not one to burn bridges or show anger at work so FU has never been needed to pull out but it is there in case I need it. That much is enough for now until I plan my escape to RL.

Some people just love it... my brother is 68 or 69 and still working making a lot of money... he has more than the other 5 siblings combined but all others are retired... he even was not working a few years back when the company laid off people and he took the money... but he wanted to get unemployment so had to apply for jobs... the company that laid him off rehired him as a consultant for more money...


He really does like the job and works from home most of the time... we think he will work until he passes... but, he does travel all over the world so it is not like he is stuck at an office..

 

[Markola]

^^^^^ There’s a lot of ways to do life. One size does not fit all and that’s a good thing.[emoji846]

 

[Telly]

.....
He really does like the job and works from home most of the time... we think he will work until he passes... but, he does travel all over the world so it is not like he is stuck at an office..

Texas Proud, does your brother pay into Social Security at his job?

If he does, please do something for me. The next time you see him, give him a nice pat on the back, and with a very positive attitude, say "Atta boy, you're doing a GREAT Job! Keep it up! Our country needs dedicated experts like you!

 

[pb4uski]

I was always under the impression that the 4% rule gave you roughly a 95% chance of not running out of money after 30 years. If you want to plan for a longer period, you need to shoot for more like 3-3.5%.

3.2988% for a 60/40 AA for a 55 year retirement (100-45) according to FIRECalc.

 

[stephenson]

This is easy - looked at due.com, then the author and owner of due.com ... just an undereducated guy who is trying the speaking and writing gig to see who will listen to him.

Nothing about the company, the website or the author supports listening to him.

Except that he is not well educated, he reminds of some of the members of my son's MBA class - all trying for an angle on the internet ... they chose various paths, but this guy is simply trying to sell himself with a life story of accomplishments, leg accident, etc.

This should help ... pontificator talking to a pontificator. https://sidehustlelab.com/how-write-entrepreneur-john-rampton/

 

[SunGuy]

People can get overly focused on a part of a system, and lose sight of the bigger picture and lifestyle.

I was an old school blogger before FIRE was even an acronym back from around 2006-2009, about dividend stock(non div's too) investing, personal finance habits, and sustainability saving versus spending habits, living a "renaissance man"/polymath lifestyle.

This was before the overall movement really picked up steam, and IIRC, this website was one of the few places I recall finding people talking about this stuff.

I came up with a few concepts and investment allocation strategies, that I have explained in various places to varying degrees, the most popular idea was my concept to help motivate people to invest more for the future income replacement from dividend paying stocks.
This was the invention of the term/concept FDDI Number (Future Daily Dividend Income Number) where you add up your yearly dividend payments and then divide them into a set 30/360 month/year day number.

So if you had say $15,000 invested into a collection of stocks, that in total paid out $150 a year, your FDDI number would be $0.4167 rounded up.

Blogging is a lot of work, and chasing engagement is almost another job on top of the writing and curating of content. It was causing a large imbalance in my work/life and time commitments, and I had to stop in order to free up more time for other social activities.

Nowadays, I am even busier at work, and so my "online presence" is very limited, usually only an hour or two in the mornings or late at night.

I have the material from all my old articles, writings, podcasts, etc. standing-by for when I have the time to write them into a few books.

 

[Koolau]

I wish this kind of drivel could be banned... at least in the normal mainstream sites...

Too much of that all ready. Better to hear someone's position and show how they are wrong than to start with the theory that they are wrong so have no right to say it. Just my humble opinion on the subject.

 

[Texas Proud]

Texas Proud, does your brother pay into Social Security at his job?

If he does, please do something for me. The next time you see him, give him a nice pat on the back, and with a very positive attitude, say "Atta boy, you're doing a GREAT Job! Keep it up! Our country needs dedicated experts like you!

Yes he does... at the max level for years...


I mentioned this to one of my sisters who was over watching UT beat the heck out of Alabama ... she said that he enjoys what he does... more power to him..

 

[harley]

I was an old school blogger before FIRE was even an acronym back from around 2006-2009, about dividend stock(non div's too) investing, personal finance habits, and sustainability saving versus spending habits, living a "renaissance man"/polymath lifestyle.

This was before the overall movement really picked up steam, and IIRC, this website was one of the few places I recall finding people talking about this stuff.

FIRE was an acronym back in the late 90s when I was on the Motley Fool Early Retirement group. I'm pretty sure the acronym was in use on John Greaney's Retire Early site too. It's been around a long while, but people keep thinking they've invented something new. Kids these days smh.

 

[Koolau]

FIRE was an acronym back in the late 90s when I was on the Motley Fool Early Retirement group. I'm pretty sure the acronym was in use on John Greaney's Retire Early site too. It's been around a long while, but people keep thinking they've invented something new. Kids these days smh.

Yeah, I love it when someone comes out with an article as if they've just discovered the FIRE acronym. They typically get about half the concepts right and miss the others. Then they show how it 1) Can't w*rk 2) Is selfish 3) Evil 4) A fantasy 5) "Wrong" 6) etc.

It's also interesting that most of these articles about FIRE are loaded with adds for Gold or other Gee Whiz "solutions" for Early Retirement.

 

[Andre1969]

FIRE was an acronym back in the late 90s when I was on the Motley Fool Early Retirement group. I'm pretty sure the acronym was in use on John Greaney's Retire Early site too. It's been around a long while, but people keep thinking they've invented something new. Kids these days smh.

I first learned about it, well at least as "FI/RE" when I joined this site, back in 2005. And I'm sure it had been around a good deal longer than that.

Someone was thoughtful enough to finally put it in the Urban Dictionary on October 23, 2019 though

 

[Amethyst]

Not as many people will click on an unsensational title, and advertisers pay for clicks. It's that simple.

I wish we could get back to, for a lack of a better term, "Neutral-speak journalism." If, such a thing did ever exist?

For instance, instead of speaking in a biased absolute, such as "FIRE Movement (Financial Independence, Retire Early) Method Doesn’t Work", why not try "The FIRE Movement isn't for Everyone," or even "Not Everyone is cut out for the FIRE Movement."

Reading through the article, there actually is some good information in there, although there's a lot of stuff that needs work or is just flat-out wrong.

For instance, the "Rule of 25" section. Isn't that just another way of saying "The 4% Rule?" The article says it doesn't take inflation into account, but I always thought that it did? Their formula also takes SS into account, but in my opinion, if you're counting on SS from the get-go, then you're not really retiring early. Unless, you plan on collecting before your FRA, but even that would put you at age 62 at the youngest. So while early, it's not really "super-early".

As for unexpected expenses? Well, most people don't budget for them even while working, so not budgeting for them while retired is a bit of a wash, in my opinion.

So, there's some good stuff in there, but other stuff, you need to take with a grain of salt. And admittedly, quoting Suze Orman doesn't give the article much street cred.

 

[Texas Proud]

Not as many people will click on an unsensational title, and advertisers pay for clicks. It's that simple.

Well, you do not get many clicks or a lot of view if... they report nothing happened...


'We go out to our filed correspondent Chet who is in the north... what do you see Chet?'


"Well, Dave, nothing is happening out here. I have tried to find someone to ask why and nobody is here to ask"


"Well, thank you for that report Chet. Now to Amy who is south of town where nothing is also happening"


ETC...

 

[JBTX]

Does this mean we should not be flying to Morocco next week for a month of independent travel?

Or perhaps not open that bottle of inexpensive Argentine Malbec in preference to saving it for a special occasion?

Sure...there are some financial institutions and financial advisory firms that promote FIRE. They promote/ sell annuities, questionable investment strategies, etc for their own self interest. These articles, IMHO, are designed for those who believe everything they read and do little research or knowledge gathering on their own.

For many Fire consists of a three legged (or more) income stream made of pensions/annuities, investment income, social security like income, and other income.

All it takes is a pen a paper, a calculator, and some of that basic financial research to understand one's options. An article like this is hardly the answer. The financial decision on whether one can afford to FIRE when and in the manner they wish is, IMHO, not rocket science. It is basic math.

Have you plans been affected by recent events (earthquake ) there?