article today on Lean vs FatFIRE

[dunkelblau]

only 110%.... that's just "FIRE" (re: the above lettuce comment)

The I.R.P. define it as, at least 2 1/2 X of income with all needs and most all "wants" True FatFIRE participants can, for example, walk right into dealership and pay cash for whatever vehicle they want....

IIRC there's a book many on this board swear by that defined thresholds on a related parameter at half the average and twice the average. Not quite the same, though, because that was (appropriately IMO) normalized by age and income, which I imagine greatly reduces the spread.

This brings up another distinction -- between fastfire and slowfire. Many here chose to exit fast and lean instead of occupying their desks for another decade to go out slow and fat. So perhaps a better comparison metric could be annual spending capacity multiplied by expected duration?

 

[11522914]

Many here chose to exit fast and lean instead of occupying their desks for another decade to go out slow and fat.

+1

 

[FI_RElater]

IIRC there's a book many on this board swear by that defined thresholds on a related parameter at half the average and twice the average. Not quite the same, though, because that was (appropriately IMO) normalized by age and income, which I imagine greatly reduces the spread.

This brings up another distinction -- between fastfire and slowfire. Many here chose to exit fast and lean instead of occupying their desks for another decade to go out slow and fat. So perhaps a better comparison metric could be annual spending capacity multiplied by expected duration?

as I said, I wasn't out "early" as some have been (although I did have an option about two years earlier... but hadn't run all the numbers) - wanted to never have to head out to get a paycheck again

I based my likelihood of spend duration as avg expected mortality plus two sd (with one sd being about seven years).... while my likely true expected duration is really only about until 85, but needed to add for spousal and thus the extra years.

The other thing I'd point out, and which has been noted by others in different threads, is that the earlier that one punches out, and hence the longer the expected duration of need, the higher probability of not just one but even two adverse corrections happening. Think of the 1998 retiree: they had two corrections in only ten years .... and we can't expect recoveries to be as fast in the future.

 

[Dtail]

Also, lots of people are stuck living in the past or living for (or in fear of) the future, instead of living in the now. I know from experience I could deal with fatFIRE or leanFIRE, and find a way to be happy with either one, so I do what I can and I don't worry about it past that.

(Yes, I plan for the future, but this is why I like the "set it and forget it" plans, like the two-fund portfolio. It helps me minimize the amount of time I plan for or worry about my future.)

Always have to have a Plan B and then things tend to work out from there.

 

[ncbill]

Perry, Mr. MM tends to be very high earners that save a lot of money. Yes some are retiring on too little.

IMHO a lot will end up like the "Your Money or Your Life" guy...sharing housing, etc.

DW's grandmother ended up living in her youngest daughter's finished basement for the last several years of her life once her husband died (grandparents had divided their dairy farm among the children decades prior)...worked out just fine.