Poll:How much is too much to walk away from?

[kcowan]

In my case I would stay OMY for 4x what I was making then walk away. That would have created a buffer which I might have needed. Now I realize I did not need it. But that was then.

 

[ejman]

I haven't read the thread but I generally walk about 2-3 miles a day. A longer hike on weekends 6-7 miles.

 

[Mdlerth]

Im a bit confused here, the people that chose a number, all said I picked $x amount of money and I would stay a few more months ,years etc. If thats your number, then you would stay forever. Because then its really not your number to walk away from.

Perhaps we all are considering what we would decide today, based on today's level of financial security and today's health and today's urgency about pursuing the bucket list. It doesn't mean that those parameters won't ever change in months or years, at which point we would decide differently.

 

[Danmar]

The key is reaching FI and if the numbers work to allow you to ER with the lifestyle you want to live then you are FIRE'd. Any more money just make you greedy IMHO. Having more stuff with not make you happier and you can not take it with you....
..

I think many people here would agree with you, but is your lifestyle really that "set" that an added 25% or 50% to your net worth would be useless? What about helping others? Don't agree with your use of the word "greedy" though.

 

[RenoJay]

I have (had) an acquaintance who "retired" at 50 after making about $10MM by starting a start-up within a MegaCorp. But he was soon drawn out of retirement by a package of stock options and nice salary (guessing $500k salary) from a well-funded bay area startup who recruited him as CEO. He commuted back and forth to bay area weekly from another state and got into the whole start up thing, promising his wife this would be the last hurrah and then they'd really retire right. Fast forward 3 years, and he suddenly got diagnosed with aggressive cancer and died within a few months. I often wonder what those last three years of his life would have been worth had he spent them with family and kids instead of tinkering at yet another "world-changing bay area start up."

 

[bradaz2488]

I think many people here would agree with you, but is your lifestyle really that "set" that an added 25% or 50% to your net worth would be useless? What about helping others? Don't agree with your use of the word "greedy" though.

Not for me.. My physical & mental health was worth more then adding 25% or 50% more to net worth. We do not require any more $$ to be happy... For us the simple things bring more fun than stuff. As far as working longer to help others, well I needed to save myself first. Did not want to become one of those guys that dies from stress before retiring... If that make me selfish then so be it...

 

[RunningBum]

I was just thinking about having that decision earlier in my career, before the dotcom bust. I had enough, but still had a lot in unvested options. I can't recall the figure, but I"ll bet it would've increased my worth another 25-35%. Seemed like easy money, and the kind of money I'd never get another shot it (partly because I wasn't going to take on another heads down, working crazy hours start-up job again) and it seemed foolish to walk away.

The bubble burst, making my unvested options worthless, along with a lot of my vested options that I hadn't yet exercised. It was another 10 years before I could ER. But I'm not sure what would've happened had I cashed out. I'd like to think that I would've diversified and rode out the bust fine, but I might've stuck it back in tech stocks, losing a lot of money AND being without a job. When I finally did ER I had learned and was much better diversified.

Anyway, stock options can be a very real test of what you'll walk away from, and what you won't.

 

[Danmar]

Interesting discussion. I retired at 56 in 2006. I was supposed to go a year earlier but my boss asked me to stay, asking me "what would it take". I said 4 day week same comp. I was very glad that I did stay in the fall of 2008 when the financial crises hit. In retrospect, even though I was very ready to go, staying until say 2009 would have been "brilliant" from a net worth perspective. Afraid to calculate how much more I would have had but it would have been a lot. Not sure I would have stayed though even knowing the future. More money certainly has a decreasing marginal utility. There is more to retirement than money, but money is still pretty important, at least in my mercenary little mind.

 

[Car-Guy]

Anyway, stock options can be a very real test of what you'll walk away from, and what you won't.

For years I received stock options from megacrop #2. They were always worth something by the time they were vested and exercised but some weren't worth very much at all. About 6 or 8 years before I retired, my company started issuing restricted stock instead if options.... Turned out much better.

 

[sengsational]

I clicked on 4 million. It's such a large amount compared to what I ever earned I'd have to take it...

For us it comes down to not the amount but what we would do with that additional money vs the value of the freedom.

I've been retired for a few years and tried to put myself in the mindset I was just before I left and they offered me a one-year contract to stay and work full-time.

I answered 2M, with the logic that I'd do their bidding for another year and then splurge with the earnings. I'd spend part of the workday day dreaming of how I was going to splurge. Get a yacht? An island home? On the day I left, I'd have the whole thing lined-up so I'd walk after a year and go into my splurge activity. Then, after a year of that (or however long the 2M lasted), I'd (attempt to) go back to living at the "normal" burn rate that my original savings had been able to support.

So for me, it was kind of a "winning the lotto" thought exercise.

 

[RunningBum]

For years I received stock options from megacrop #2. They were always worth something by the time they were vested and exercised but some weren't worth very much at all. About 6 or 8 years before I retired, my company started issuing restricted stock instead if options.... Turned out much better.

The company I worked for more than doubled in value 3 of the first 5 years I worked there, and had high double digit returns the other 2 years. They switched to RSUs later too, which were better then since the stock was pretty flat, but in those high flying years, options were fantastic.

 

[Bikechuck]

I had three surgeries in my final year of work and that was enough for me. I'm done, enjoying my retirement and no amount of money could lure me back to my cubist period.

 

[USGrant1962]

I voted for $400k in the poll, but my real number is probably a bit higher. I think I'd go back for one year at $500k if a job offer like that magically fell into my lap.

I also voted $400K but it is probably higher than that. I thought about this before RE because there is a lot of motion in the VP ranks of my industry right now and jobs that I am perfectly qualified for have been posted. To go back full time I would need to see ~$500K/yr plus benefits, for up to two years. But I have not put my hat in the ring so maybe it is not a priority.

Two or 3 years from now there would be no amount.

 

[michelle]

I saw it a couple times; A great point was made about the income relative to our existing NW. None of the options would be particularly enticing if our NW was 100 million (which sadly it is not).

This year's income will be about 8% of our NW after tax if it was all saved. That's quite a bit, however we are FI with what we have at our projected retirement spending rate (which we have calculated as much more than our current spending rate due to extra time off to spend).

So what's the problem then? Well there are a lot of unknowns over the next four decades, and who knows how our tastes might change. Perhaps a larger buffer is a good idea. And it just seems like so much money to walk away from.

Also one of life's greatest pleasures is giving to others. We give a lot of money and time to charity right now, but we could put ourselves in a position to use a large amount of money to make a substantial difference in many people's lives, something much grander than anything we have done before. It's hard to know where such endeavours might take us or what kind of money might be required.

On the other hand, life is short. We have so many things we love to do and want to do, and we are eager to have time as our own rather than tied to work.

It's not an easy call.

Thanks for all the replies. Some very insightful thoughts.

 

[nash031]

Interesting thread and raises a question I evaluate often. As savings grow and pension value locks in, I've weight whether it'd be worth it for me to stay longer on active duty.

At 20, I lock in $53000/yr pension with COLA at ~CPI plus health care.

I could stay four more years, likely earn another promotion that would increase my pay by roughly 15%. The pension would increase by about 25% annual pay.

But those figures relative to our net worth at that point, and how long it'd take me to increase savings and replace that income is about the same if I get a decent job after... it's an easy decision. I can get any decent job for four years, continue saving, and have enough, rather than working and separating from family for four more years and having more than enough.

So I guess the question is, what is enough?

 

[Jerry1]

I walked away from 40% of my salary to go part time and I'll walk away for the other 60% as soon as I'm comfortable that I can live the life I want in retirement. So, I'm not sure there is any amount I wouldn't walk away from. At some point, it's either that or work until you die.

 

[traineeinvestor]

While there has been the occasional moment when I have thought to myself that "If had stayed for a bit longer we could have afforded X" those thought have been been quickly quashed by the knowledge that we I would have to sacrifice the much greater benefits of ER.

I've found that a small amount of consulting work is enjoyable but the money is something of an irrelevancy.

 

[Scuba]

When I resigned, my boss asked me to think about what it would take for me to stay another 6 months. He indicated working from home all the time and/or additional comp could be on the table. I decided I wouldn't have given my notice if I weren't comfortable that we had enough, and time together while we're in our 50's in good health was really important to DH & me. I graciously thanked him for the opportunity and declined. So far it's been a great decision.

 

[Koolau]

Ironically, they wouldn't have had to pay me a dime more to stay - all they would have had to do was not change my j*b. Once they did change it, I left immediately.

I suppose had they offered me a ton of money to stay I might have, but that would not have happened since megacorp was shedding w*rkers as fast as possible at the time. YMMV

 

[RobLJ]

Haven't read the whole thread, but one way of seeing this is the OMY syndrome trigger-point. I was making on the low point of the responses (100-200k) before retiring--the salary was far more than I ever expected to earn, but I did keep going another 2.5 years after figuring we could FIRE.
I'm still working parttime online with my own hours and probably for another 3 years, but working another two years could have allowed me to avoid that.
But working 50-60 hours at high stress versus working 15 hours/week at about 35% made the parttime pay look really good. I like working 10-20 hours/week a lot and didn't like working 60 very much despite the pay but was willing to plug on for a while to increase quality of retirement and shorten DW's FIRE (she's considerably younger).

I think it's more of a question of quality of life/margin of error in the last few years before you finally pull the trigger, particularly if you have a high-end job. I'm lucky--I'm working more as a hobby and haven't had to pull anything from the 403b yet.

 

[Elbata]

Well, this is why I was never a good employee.

How much would I actually have to work if I went back?

 

[Badger]

When I read the question my first thought was another way it could be rephrased - Can you be bought?

Cheers!

 

[scrabbler1]

I walked away from 40% of my salary to go part time and I'll walk away for the other 60% as soon as I'm comfortable that I can live the life I want in retirement. So, I'm not sure there is any amount I wouldn't walk away from. At some point, it's either that or work until you die.

This is a lot like my glide path to ER between 2001 and 2008. In 2001, I walked away from 40% of my after-tax salary to work part-time. The remaining 60% I walked away from in 2 steps. The first step was in 2007 when I made my second reduction in weekly hours worked, from 20 to 12, leaving me with about 1/3 of my original, full-time, after-tax pay. But 17 months after that, in late 2008, I could not stand working even 12 hours a week, as the 2-days-a-week commute was too much. I was able to walk away from that and have been happily retired since then.

Had I still been working full-time, besides being majorly depressed, I would be earning nearly $100k a year (before taxes) back in late 2008, and about 20% more today (assuming minimal raises). And my company stock would be worth more than 4x it was when I left (it grew by a factor of 30 in the 11 years it was around while I worked there). Yes, I walked away from a lot.

 

[Perryinva]

I am not voting on this the way it is phrased. So many more things factor into the issue in addition to the money, although it is A factor. Age, health, stress, savings, security level, responsibilities, etc.

Word for word what I was thinking.

 

[Ronstar]

I voted $2m a year, but it would have to be doing something I liked and only 40 hrs a week.