Good BBC video on FIRE

[youbet]

...what retirement is for person A is not the same retirement that person B is.

And how you use the word "retirement" in context can determine the meaning as well. For example, one might "retire" from MegaCorp and be receiving pension, retiree medical and other benefits earned by participation in MegaCorp's "retirement" plan and meeting their requirements for "retirement." After "retirement" from MegaCorp, one might decide to turn your woodworking hobby into a small, part time business. Now you're "retired" from MegaCorp but semi-retired in lifestyle.

Nonetheless, there is still a dictionary definition of the word and very often, some folks (usually the ones with blogs who are WORKING to make money) try and sell the idea that they are indeed retired (as literally defined) and that is the only issue I have with it.

This is where I am in full agreement you. Leading a fully retired lifestyle does not mean running a business part time, working for someone else less than 40 hours a week or being fully engaged in a income producing hobby. It means you've stopped using time to earn money.

When bloggers like Mr MM say they're leading a fully retired lifestyle, they're being a bit deceitful as an attempt to further the legitimacy of the positions they take when authoring their blogs, newsletters, etc. I don't know why they do it. It seems to put some people off.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to me what lifestyle another person chooses as long as it doesn't interfere with mine and in the case of bloggers and authors, isn't misrepresented. I think having a flexible, lucrative, part time hobby that generates some income would be great, but I don't have one. If I did, I'd label myself FI, RE from MegaCorp and now living a semi-retired lifestyle.

 

[youbet]

Why are people who are early retired, receiving no earned income, so sensitive as to always label others who are, as not really retired?

Generally, I don't think they are "sensitive" about it as much as they are diligent. And that's likely related to thinking that words and their meanings are important, especially as they relate to their context.

 

[youbet]

The point of FIRE is to put oneself in position to do what one wants with one’s time.

To me, the point of FI (not FIRE) is to put oneself in position to do what one wants with one's time.

If creative pursuits result in some bank, who freaking cares!!!

Certainly agree with that. In fact, I think it would be great to have some fun-to-earn hobby income! I just don't seem to have the skills/talents/knowledge to do anything that someone would pay me to do for them. But if I did, I would say I'm FI and leading a semi-retired lifestyle.

 

[tmm99]

MMM doesn't seem retired at all from what people are saying here - more like MM got off the beaten path and invented a new work/lifestyle for himself and possibly other people who are willing to listen.

As for the folks here, Most of you retired from a full-time position because you became financially independent (FIRE). And some of you started a side gig (playing in a band once a week, selling furniture you made because your friends saw your nice furniture and asked you to make some for them, starting an online tutoring course, etc). But you are already financially independent and do not need the money you earned for living expenses. Maybe you gift the earned money to your grandchildren. Maybe you treat your friends to a nice dinner out. Maybe you splurge on first-class travel instead of business class. I don't know, but if you're already financially independent, and you take on some hobby jobs for fun, I'd say, you're as good as being retired because you can quit those jobs any time you want.

That may not jibe with the definition of "retire" in the dictionary, but that's my definition. Or maybe I'm talking more about the FI part of "FIRE".

 

[LarryMelman]

The loudest of the FIRE bloggers are all from the millennial aka everyone-gets-a-juice-box generation like MMM who simply changed careers to writing for a living. But don't dare tell them that they aren't retired! They will shout "Retirement police!" and insist that they have the right to twist the word however they wish. Even if you propose more descriptive words like "re-careering", they demand to say that they "retired".

And that's not being "judgy" or denying them their juice box. The word "retired" already has a definition that most people know. If you're side-hustling or blogging for money that you couldn't live without, you aren't retired.

 

[jimbee]

Because I love to argue silly counter-points, one could just as easily ask:

Why are people who are early retired, receiving no earned income, so sensitive as to always label others who are, as not really retired?

Words have meaning.

 

[Exchme]

Pretty positive view of the FIRE movement. A lot of emphasis on adopting a FIRE work lifestyle (frugality and savings) regardless whether you will fully retire early. They pointed out that you can't rely on your employer for financial security over the long term. Prepare for FIRE and you will be prepared for your job to suddenly disappear.

Good point and continued good employment is an often overlooked risk. Technology changes so quickly that people may only have a few really great earning years and if they waste those on big spending, they may be stuck later in life.

My one nit to pick with the video is they interviewed people in their 30s and 40s and showed big graphics that said you need 25X expenses saved up to retire early. For folks so young, that would be pretty shaky.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

The loudest of the FIRE bloggers are all from the millennial aka everyone-gets-a-juice-box generation like MMM who simply changed careers to writing for a living. But don't dare tell them that they aren't retired! They will shout "Retirement police!" and insist that they have the right to twist the word however they wish. Even if you propose more descriptive words like "re-careering", they demand to say that they "retired".

And that's not being "judgy" or denying them their juice box. The word "retired" already has a definition that most people know. If you're side-hustling or blogging for money that you couldn't live without, you aren't retired.

Then there is the couple who initially certainly seemed to claim retirement but it came out they both still work, just from home. The husband's salary is public record and he makes over $200K a year at a job with benefits.

The first few reviews on Amazon are from long time followers' who felt snookered. I don't understand why people who are already wealthy by most standards feel the need to mislead other people to make even more money. It makes it harder for the blog's of people who really did retire early to get traction because of the fantastical claims by some of fake ER bloggers who really still work or end up going back to work full-time shortly after claiming extreme ER.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

Then there is the couple who initially certainly seemed to claim retirement but it came out they both still work, just from home. The husband's salary is public record and he makes over $200K a year at a job with benefits.

The first few reviews on Amazon are from long time followers' who felt snookered. I don't understand why people who are already wealthy by most standards feel the need to mislead other people to make even more money. It makes it harder for the blog's of people who really did retire early to get traction because of the fantastical claims by some of fake ER bloggers who really still work or end up going back to work full-time shortly after claiming extreme ER.

And this... "$271,000 salary in 2016 working as a non-profit executive." Wow. I think the negative reviews are earned.

I didn't coin this term but I think it rings true: "Like much of the self-help ecosystem, seems the key to living that superior lifestyle is having other people pay for it."

 

[Aerides]

The loudest of the FIRE bloggers are all from the millennial aka everyone-gets-a-juice-box generation like MMM who simply changed careers to writing for a living.

MMM is 47. He's a late Gen-Xer, far too old to be a millennial.

 

[oiseux]

Because I love to argue silly counter-points, one could just as easily ask:

Why are people who are early retired, receiving no earned income, so sensitive as to always label others who are, as not really retired?

I wrote some "judgey" comments exactly to point out that words matter (and I am FI but not RE). In a strict sense of the words, FIRE breaks down to two phrases, "financial independence" and "retire early". You can even look at the original FI definition from Dominguez/Robin: "... having an income sufficient for your basic needs and comforts from a source other than paid employment"

In some instances, there are people who claim "FIRE", and yet not only work, but need that work or the benefits it pays to meet basic needs and comforts. That's not financially independent, by the Dominquez/Robin definition or any other standard definition (despite the emergence of "barista or coast FIRE", i.e. not really FI)

So it really comes down to what it means to "Retire Early". There are plenty of people who are financially independent but do not consider themselves retired, even if they love what they are doing. You can devote yourself to a variety of passions and pursuits, and pursue self and social fulfillment in a variety of fashions. But if you are grossing 400K+ and spending a considerably time promoting and developing a single pursuit, is that retired? I don't think that was in the original spirit of the founders.

There are plenty of people who are working, who may even be financially independent, and love what they do. They don't considered themselves retired.

 

[ncbill]

And how you use the word "retirement" in context can determine the meaning as well. For example, one might "retire" from MegaCorp and be receiving pension, retiree medical and other benefits earned by participation in MegaCorp's "retirement" plan and meeting their requirements for "retirement." After "retirement" from MegaCorp, one might decide to turn your woodworking hobby into a small, part time business. Now you're "retired" from MegaCorp but semi-retired in lifestyle.

This is where I am in full agreement you. Leading a fully retired lifestyle does not mean running a business part time, working for someone else less than 40 hours a week or being fully engaged in a income producing hobby. It means you've stopped using time to earn money.

I'd still consider my close relative (retired from a skilled blue-collar job) retired...traveled the first decade, then volunteered extensively.

Only in the last 5 years or so he found he could make decent money buying items at yard sales, fixing them up, and re-selling online.

Doesn't need the money, but at his age (retired now for nearly 30 years) can't be as active...his remunerative work keeps him busy & as he says beats sitting in front of the TV.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I wrote some "judgey" comments exactly to point out that words matter (and I am FI but not RE). In a strict sense of the words, FIRE breaks down to two phrases, "financial independence" and "retire early". You can even look at the original FI definition from Dominguez/Robin: "... having an income sufficient for your basic needs and comforts from a source other than paid employment"

In some instances, there are people who claim "FIRE", and yet not only work, but need that work or the benefits it pays to meet basic needs and comforts. That's not financially independent, by the Dominquez/Robin definition or any other standard definition (despite the emergence of "barista or coast FIRE", i.e. not really FI)

So it really comes down to what it means to "Retire Early". There are plenty of people who are financially independent but do not consider themselves retired, even if they love what they are doing. You can devote yourself to a variety of passions and pursuits, and pursue self and social fulfillment in a variety of fashions. But if you are grossing 400K+ and spending a considerably time promoting and developing a single pursuit, is that retired? I don't think that was in the original spirit of the founders.

There are plenty of people who are working, who may even be financially independent, and love what they do. They don't considered themselves retired.

+1. I don't really understand the posters who say it is okay for people to write a book / blog on "how I retired early" when they were pretty clearly not retired or FI. Is it okay for people who aren't millionaires to write books on how I became a millionaire, if the only way they really became a millionaire was by selling the books? Or how I become a doctor in 2 years when they aren't a doctor? And called anyone who called them out on it the Internet Doctor Police? Word do have meanings. Personally, I think it is good to call out people writing fiction works and passing them off as non-fiction.

 

[JoshTrent]

I agree with @youbet on several points.. suffice to say that there should be a "Pre-FIRE Blogger" and "Post-FIRE Blogger" label attached to those pushing their wares. I have yet to find one, true "Post-FIRE Blogger" anywhere, laying out HC Calcs, LTC Calcs, Portfolio Calcs with withdrawal rates, Tax abatement Calcs.. etc. I see more of these in discussion on this board!

I think that there is confusion about the definition of FI and FIRE in today's society. IMHO..

FI = The ability to fully meet one's obligations while doing nothing (see below) or while creating revenue performing tasks that person does not deem "work". "Work" may include passive investments, managing a portfolio, a j*b they love, a hobby, etc.

FIRE = the ability to spend ZERO effort towards meeting one's obligations prior to one's Full Retirement age.

Shoot.. some people are forced to RE based on life circumstances, whether they were prepared or not.

 

[youbet]

I'd still consider my close relative (retired from a skilled blue-collar job) retired...traveled the first decade, then volunteered extensively.

Only in the last 5 years or so he found he could make decent money buying items at yard sales, fixing them up, and re-selling online.

Doesn't need the money, but at his age (retired now for nearly 30 years) can't be as active...his remunerative work keeps him busy & as he says beats sitting in front of the TV.

We could play games with anecdotal examples of "retirement while working part time" all day ncbill. And depending on where along the continuum between zero earned income and substantial earned income your close relative lies, opinions will vary. Since you say his business makes him "decent" money, I'll assume he's filing and paying taxes, that the business income is impacting his SS and he's legit in the eyes of the IRS.

I'd describe your close relative as retired from his job, FI and now enjoying a semi-retired lifestyle operating an online business. Sounds good to me. Since your close relative's status as either working, working part time, semi-retired or retired impacts no one else, who cares? But if he aspired to to publicly describe his current financial situation as one of being fully retired, I'd say no. I'd say his current financial situation is one of being semi-retired. He has decent income based on working (running a business).

 

[youbet]

I don't think that was in the original spirit of the founders.

An excellent point oiseux! Perhaps it's the vast broadening of the meaning of FI, RE and FIRE that's disconcerting.

Leaving a hated, wage slave job at MC to write a blog on FIRE and earn income that way instead would be a great thing to do IMHO. But it's great career management not FIRE. And presenting yourself as FIRE'd to strengthen your legitimacy as a subject matter expert would be wrong.

I don't think FIRE was meant to be career management, even if the career management leads to a happier, more satisfying lifestyle.

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

I guess I'm not FIRED, about to go mow an anonymous neighbor's yard for the second time (from Nextdoor.com). She was looking for someone, I think a pro bid pro prices! I rode my bike by and it was small and using her mower and said I'd do it for $10. She left a very nice voicemail after I mowed the first time telling me where to find my $10 and thanking me for doing such a nice job and for "being kind with my price." If I was next door, I'd just mow it with mine but figure $10 is fair for an hour of my time including the walk to and from. It's a temp job as she just needs help until she can resume doing her own.



I think it was someone here that pointed out that "free" volunteering is often under appreciated and/or you waste your time and are not utilized efficiently but if there is a little skin in the game it will be more enjoyable.* Most of my "volunteering" will likely be paid for this reason as I have found it to be true in my experience as well.


I still plan to get a fun job at some point but am still enjoying not doing anything as I start my 3rd week of freedom! I get thrill getting a buck for having fun. It is hard to find a perfect gig that is that fun and flexible... fun definitely comes first! When I moonlighted before I fired, I got more pleasure from a $2 tip (or even a sincere thank you) from a grateful customer than I ever did from my "career." It really makes a huge difference when it truly is 100% by choice without any perceived need to earn.



*I've also found this true on giving away stuff on Craig's List when liquidating most of my household a few years ago. Free stuff often results in no-shows but if I charge way too little, greed kicks in and they rush to get the deal before the next guy - and I get a few bucks in my pocket.

 

[Montecfo]

I do think the overworking the definition of "retired" is kind of offensive.

People who are truly FI but who choose to work at a less than a full time job are retired in my opinion.

I recall being told by some folks here that choosing to work for unneeded income means you are not retired. That seems a bit extreme. But certainly packaging a career change as "retirement" a la MMM seems a bit inaccurate.

But I also think you can inadvertently stumble into something lucrative after true full retirement. Perhaps this is what happened to MMM. He's making far more money on what started as a hobby job or side gig than he ever made from a clock punching job.

After FI, I relished that I could choose to not work at any time. But I did not hate my job and honestly it was hard to quit. My job had become easy for me and less stressful. It required less than full time and attention. But finally I realized that the responsibility of a job was preventing me from travelling as much or at the times I wanted to. That and just the simple math that every year I worked was one less year of not working.

I felt retired after FI, even though I still worked.

I see the definition of "retired" to include still doing work you choose to do, even if it pays or even pays well.

I see that many folks will not view another as "retired" if he or she goes to work everyday. And finally saying "no" to a paycheck makes it more real. But it may be hard to tell by looking from the outside where someone is retired or not, in my view.

 

[armor99]

I have shown to many of the younger engineers over my career, just how little it actually takes, provided you start early enough to build a million dollar portfolio. I pulled out a compound interest calculator and showed them $541 a month for 30 years, at 10% average interest ( yes I know that is optimistic) is roughly 1 million. Most are blown away to see that…
Imagine if this was taught in school how that would suddenly change things… [emoji3][emoji106]

 

[youbet]

People who are truly FI but who choose to work at a less than a full time job are retired in my opinion.

How do you define a full time job? The out-of-date concept of a "40 hour week" sure isn't a useful definition anymore.

And why would it have to be "less than a full time job?" For example, if someone "retires" from a career in the Navy and could easily live on savings and pension (so is FI) but decides to go to work full time as a consultant to enhance their financial position, I'd say they are "retired." But I'd say they are "retired" from the Navy and now working as a consultant.

The reason I don't use the term "retired" (with no added detail) to describe a lifestyle where one is still working is that the listener/reader is most likely going to assume the classic definition of retirement where the retiree is not obligated for any deliverables and spends zero time accomphishing them.

As I've mentioned before, if I was doing some work I wouldn't describe myself to others as "retired." To give a more correct impression of my lifestyle, I'd say that I retired from MegaCorp 16 years ago and now do yard work for a few elderly neighbors to help them out and earn a few bux (or whatever).

It's just a matter of giving the listener/reader a more accurate picture of your situation.

 

[Montecfo]

How do you define a full time job? The out-of-date concept of a "40 hour week" sure isn't a useful definition anymore.

And why would it have to be "less than a full time job?" For example, if someone "retires" from a career in the Navy and could easily live on savings and pension (so is FI) but decides to go to work full time as a consultant to enhance their financial position, I'd say they are "retired." But I'd say they are "retired" from the Navy and now working as a consultant.

The reason I don't use the term "retired" (with no added detail) to describe a lifestyle where one is still working is that the listener/reader is most likely going to assume the classic definition of retirement where the retiree is not obligated for any deliverables and spends zero time accomphishing them.

As I've mentioned before, if I was doing some work I wouldn't describe myself to others as "retired." To give a more correct impression of my lifestyle, I'd say that I retired from MegaCorp 16 years ago and now do yard work for a few elderly neighbors to help them out and earn a few bux (or whatever).

It's just a matter of giving the listener/reader a more accurate picture of your situation.

I said less than fulltime as an example.

In what sense does doing something you enjoy, but get paid unneeded remuneration for constitute "work"?

I say it doesn't. So if you are FI and don't consider your job to be "work" because you enjoy it, I think it is safe to say you are retired.

But if you said "I am financially independent but enjoy my job too much to retire", I also would not quibble.

It seems to be more in the eye of the beholder in that sense. But I agree with you that the language used should not be an attempt to deceive. But I doubt it ever is in the context of your examples.

I do find it misleading for a person who left one job and took another to say they "retired". The word would be resigned.

I'm glad we are both lovers of words and language.

 

[farky]

Fire

My ? Is medical insurance. What do you do for ins when you retire early? I judt tirned 62 and thats what is holding me back is cost of insurance.Any cheap ideas?

 

[RobLJ]

On language/terminology

As I've mentioned before, in 2015 I retired from my tenure-track position , moved to Reno and taught online half-time for half pay (the University considered me "retired" and had a category called Voluntary Modification of Employment, to use the proper terminology).


While FIRE didn't seem fully accurate, I certainly felt retired and used the term semi-retired which seemed to fit especially since the reduced hours and flexibility made working seem almost like a hobby with pay. So I think the reality is that the FIRED exist a bit on a spectrum from full evangelical FIRE/retired to FISEER (financially independent/semiretired).

Since it was a 5 year gig, since last May I am fully FIRE, although my DW and I have talked about the possibility of "working" as camp hosts at a National Park; the pay would be so trivial that I suppose I would consider myself still full FIRE if that happened since I probably would do it even without pay. The FIRE carnival is a big tent though and can accomodate many.

 

[2177V]

The real winners, IMHO, are those who never "FIRE" because their lifelong gigs are work they truly love. They succeed in never being "wage slaves." They become very financially independent but never want to be considered "retired." They love what they're doing and always have.

I agree. Find a job that you love to do like a professional baseball player even in the minor league. People who FIRE hate their job but it is better to change job rather than be miserable. Does not make sense to work in a miserable job, live below your means and then FIRE which means your entire life is a miserable one because your quality of life is low because you are saving money and when you retire, your quality of life is less than a traditional retirement.

 

[Alan]

My ? Is medical insurance. What do you do for ins when you retire early? I judt tirned 62 and thats what is holding me back is cost of insurance.Any cheap ideas?

Aye, there’s the rub.

In my case I stretched myself to work an extra 3 years to age 55 to qualify for access to retiree health insurance. Paying full whack so it was expensive but it was affordable for us to start our retirement.