Die With Zero - Book

[Dog]

If I waited until 65 instead of 55, I'd have a lot more money.



But, my father passed at 63 from an aortic aneurysm and 2 brothers from cancer at 53 and 63.



Nothing's guaranteed.

This!

 

[daylatedollarshort]

And again, those wanting to employ full-time servants really should consider heading south of the border, since one wouldn't need anywhere near an extra $10k/month to hire a cook, maid, gardener, & even a PYT to serve the mixed drinks.

They'd also be happier to work for an expat given the higher pay & better treatment than they usually get from the locals.

Some of the ex-pat low level managers at my last megacorp job hired cooks, maids, gardeners and drivers when they lived overseas. It was a hard adjustment for some of them to get transferred back to the U.S. and lose that lifestyle.

 

[Scuba]

Finished reading Die with Zero yesterday. I thought it was okay, albeit kind of superficial in its approach. On the upside, it got me thinking about what sort of "experiences" my money might buy. That's not a new line of thought, but I appreciate the spur to think more about it.

I'll mention some of what didn't resonate for me.

1. His emphasis is almost entirely on physical activities. He pays hardly any attention to the fact that a lot of activities that bring people enjoyment and meaning are not physical at all -- they are mental or spiritual. Aside from a couple mentions of doing nice things for loved ones, the entire thrust of the book is on physical degeneration and consequent restriction in physical activities. "Hurry up and buy ski lift tickets, before it's too late." I kept waiting for him to talk about non-physical activities, but he either seems unable to grasp that possibility (I got the impression he's an extroverted, externally oriented person) or it just didn't "fit with his narrative," so he left it out. Big omission. Made the book and the analysis feel shallow to me.

2. I don't believe life ends at death, so I don't feel the urgency that he does, to cram everything into the remaining years of life, or else. When he says things like "When you are no longer able to process energy, you will be declared dead, and your adventure will be over," I respond, "Nope." He sounds like an atheist materialist who thinks this physical life is all there is.

3. I never bought into the protestant work ethic or materialistic mindset, so I felt he was speaking to a different audience than me.

4. He reminds me of the research on satisficers vs. maximizers. Satisficers are happier long term than maximizers. He sounds like a maximizer. I agree with the general thrust (use your money wisely), but I'm not persuaded that trying to get everything Just Right, and maximize your "experience points" -- or even aspiring to that -- is a good idea.

5. He goes on and on about deteriorating with age. It's kind of depressing. He makes no allowance for the fact that people adapt and their interests shift as they get older. He makes it sound like, if you can't hit the slopes at 70, oh no, you won't enjoy your life anymore. No, you just adapt and shift to something else.

6. We have no data suggesting that people get unhappier as they get older. If his premise was true (that physical degeneration with age meant loss of enjoyment), we would see that reflected in the data. But we don't.

7. He doesn't even touch on the fact that the enjoyment level of an experience has less to do with the external event you are "buying" and more to do with your internal attitude and perspective. I can have a more enjoyable experience feeding a squirrel than many people would have on an expensive cruise. Part of what happens as you get older -- at least if you keep learning -- is that your ability to derive enjoyment/satisfaction from experiences increases.

8. He says that the more money you spend on something, the more enjoyment you get out of it. Nah. Some of my best experiences have been on the cheap (e.g., traveling cross-country with some friends, backpacking or camping), and the cheapness has been part of the enjoyment. Yes, spending more money buys you more luxury and convenience, but it doesn't necessarily buy you more enjoyment.

9. In general, the book makes it sound as if the whole game of life is about external stimuli and events. I touched on this in #1, but it's as if the inner life does not exist for him (except as memories of external events).

10. Some of my best years have not been particularly "enjoyable." They have been very hard. Life is not all about enjoyment and pleasure. A full life, imo, is about more than just that.

11. What about spiritual development? What about personal or psychological development? What about learning to transmute "negative" experience into positive? What about becoming a better or wiser person? He doesn't mention any of this. Just go out and spend money on travel, cruises, skiing, big birthday bashes, whatever. It struck me as narrow-minded and unimaginative.

12. He repeats himself a lot.


I have other gripes, but I guess that's enough (probably more than enough, heh). I know I sound cranky, but I'm not. I expected much of this going in, based on descriptions of the book and knowledge about the author, so it wasn't a surprise or a disappointment. Despite my criticisms, I'm glad I read it. It stimulated my thinking on the subject.

Your post really resonated with me. I haven’t read the book, and generally agree that spending money to pursue one’s passions and interests is a good thing, vs just focusing on retaining wealth. Having said that, my MIL is one of the happiest people I know. She is thrilled every day by observing nature at her home, whether it’s butterflies, insects, birds, plants, or her cats. She really loves her life and it is not about spending money for fancy experiences. She just values who she is and where she is every day. I admire her greatly. We can all aspire to have such a sense of wonder in our everyday lives!

 

[Scuba]

I'm surprised you don't put a ring on her.
Doesn't seem to be any downside for you.

I’m guessing she has no desire for a ring, and if she does, she’ll buy one for herself.

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

I’m guessing she has no desire for a ring, and if she does, she’ll buy one for herself.

That guess would not be correct.

 

[HopeToGolf]

Elon Musk used to have a hoard of luxury homes, but he recently sold most of them, except for one event hosting home in California. He now lives in a small, $50K box home he rents on Boca Chica, Texas, near his SpaceX launch site, so he can better focus his time on his pet projects: It’s literally a box—a mass-produced, 20 feet x 20 feet foldable, prefabricated home made by Boxabl, a startup making modular instant houses.

I've pointed this out to our adult kids, hey if it is good enough for Elon, maybe it is something to consider. Think about how early you could retire living in one of these - the ultimate in low overhead and simple living.

A bit of a tangent…..:

Does his wife/girlfriend and child live in the box with him? I saw that he lives in the home and thought it was interesting but then questioned whether or not his family was there. Living in a home like that is interesting until one starts to layer on complexities of life (at least one with “traditional” values and approaches). I’ll take one.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

A bit of a tangent…..:

Does his wife/girlfriend and child live in the box with him? I saw that he lives in the home and thought it was interesting but then questioned whether or not his family was there. Living in a home like that is interesting until one starts to layer on complexities of life (at least one with “traditional” values and approaches). I’ll take one.

I read his current partner, Grimes, and their baby live in Austin. He has 5 kids with his first wife. I don't know where she lives.

 

[2177V]

I'm too old to keep up with urban dictionary, lighten up a little [ just a little ribbing going on..

Truce?

Let’s call it a truce and move on. My main point of early retirement versus late retirement is….it ultimately comes down to (1) circumstances and (2) personal preferences.

Example: Winning a lotto is a “change in circumstances” which early retirement is justified. In my case I retired early at age 55 and received a job offer for a retirement job with high pay, lots of vacation time, getting two pay checks, low stress, etc. I decided to work from age 55 to 65. Engineers out there can calculate what happens if you live on your original pension from your first career and then sock away 100% of your take home engineer’s pay for 10 years plus allowing your portfolio from your first job to grow an additional 10 years.

Money grows exponentially especially in the last 10 years was my main point.

A personal preference example is the need to retire from job burn-out. That alone is sufficient to justify early retirement. I suffered job burn-out in my career but I changed job to reduce the stress.

Everyone has different circumstances and personal preferences and we need to respect that. I admit doing some trash talking to counter other people’s arguments but their set of circumstances and personal preferences to not apply to me and vice versa. Otherwise, it is like Ford truck versus Chevy truck argument.

I also apologize if some of my trash talking may have offended someone out there. Trashing talking can be fun if you do not cross the line of offending the other guy. Especially when it involves sports. Retirement is a little bit more serious so in the future I will be more careful what I type.

 

[Koolau]

Let’s call it a truce and move on. My main point of early retirement versus late retirement is….it ultimately comes down to (1) circumstances and (2) personal preferences.

Example: Winning a lotto is a “change in circumstances” which early retirement is justified. In my case I retired early at age 55 and received a job offer for a retirement job with high pay, lots of vacation time, getting two pay checks, low stress, etc. I decided to work from age 55 to 65. Engineers out there can calculate what happens if you live on your original pension from your first career and then sock away 100% of your take home engineer’s pay for 10 years plus allowing your portfolio from your first job to grow an additional 10 years.

Money grows exponentially especially in the last 10 years was my main point.

A personal preference example is the need to retire from job burn-out. That alone is sufficient to justify early retirement. I suffered job burn-out in my career but I changed job to reduce the stress.

Everyone has different circumstances and personal preferences and we need to respect that. I admit doing some trash talking to counter other people’s arguments but their set of circumstances and personal preferences to not apply to me and vice versa. Otherwise, it is like Ford truck versus Chevy truck argument.

I also apologize if some of my trash talking may have offended someone out there. Trashing talking can be fun if you do not cross the line of offending the other guy. Especially when it involves sports. Retirement is a little bit more serious so in the future I will be more careful what I type.

Hey, it HAS been a very lively discussion! AND, now you know what each of our "trigger" words are. If I were to offer only one piece of advice it would be to purge the word "servant" from your vocabulary. There are so many ways to describe "hiring it done" (which most of us do!) Other than that, PARTY ON GARTH and YMMV.

 

[ral3210]

Oh yeah, me too. Have a long list of charities that we fund regularly. I'm not worried about the kids either, both work hard and are very smart.

But I'm not going to cut back now just in case something happens in the future that would cause me to cut back. If that happens then I'll deal with it then. Now is the time to deal with the present and have fun!

I like your outlook but I personally know many people who had it made financially and said they would cut back if and when they are forced to. The took a lot of equity risk that they did not need to take. Life often does not work out the way we want it to. Markets don't keep going up. These people found out that that what Mr Market gives, Mr Market can take back (i.e., 1973-4, 2000-02, 2008).


Everyone that has invested in an index fund has done well the past 10 years. In my view it is very unlikely to continue. By most measures market overvaluations are at historic extremes. Maybe it is different this time, but I don't believe that (and don't want to risk this possibility). Getting a 50% hair cut and maybe taking 20 years to get back to where we are today (a fair possibility) is not something I'd want to chance. Many on this board won't be alive in 20 years!

 

[CRLLS]

I've been reading this thread and not commented as of yet. I like this site because there are so many knowledgeable posters that give out valuable info with no reimbursement at all. They do it to help others. I sometimes feel that I can help out on the simple questions, especially when it is something that I have recently learned myself. I like it when threads follow that line of. I don't like posts that are intentionally worded in a way to "simulate" a lively discussion. IMO, trash talking is never OK here, no matter how far it goes or doesn't go. Let's keep it friendly and welcoming.

 

[corn18]

I like your outlook but I personally know many people who had it made financially and said they would cut back if and when they are forced to. The took a lot of equity risk that they did not need to take. Life often does not work out the way we want it to. Markets don't keep going up. These people found out that that what Mr Market gives, Mr Market can take back (i.e., 1973-4, 2000-02, 2008).


Everyone that has invested in an index fund has done well the past 10 years. In my view it is very unlikely to continue. By most measures market overvaluations are at historic extremes. Maybe it is different this time, but I don't believe that (and don't want to risk this possibility). Getting a 50% hair cut and maybe taking 20 years to get back to where we are today (a fair possibility) is not something I'd want to chance. Many on this board won't be alive in 20 years!

1973 was not a terrible year to retire. 2000 was not bad at all. 1969 was bad. 1982, now that was a good year to retire.

 

[2177V]

Hey, it HAS been a very lively discussion! AND, now you know what each of our "trigger" words are. If I were to offer only one piece of advice it would be to purge the word "servant" from your vocabulary. There are so many ways to describe "hiring it done" (which most of us do!) Other than that, PARTY ON GARTH and YMMV.

Koolau...you are right about the term servant being politically incorrect on the internet. I also found out that maid and butler should also not be used. The best PC term on the internet is domestic employee.

My wife owns a business and employs 6 employees but my wife does not like to call them "employees". My wife prefers to call them "co-workers" instead even though my wife is the owner and the boss.

We finally decided to call the person who we will hire to help us at home as a domestic co-worker. My wife is 20 years younger than me so she is more connected to the latest PC definitions than I am.

 

[Luvtoride]

One more divorce and I am sure to die broke!

ROFL [emoji1787] Ummm…that’s not the advice in the book!

 

[dixonge]

2. I don't believe life ends at death, so I don't feel the urgency that he does, to cram everything into the remaining years of life, or else. When he says things like "When you are no longer able to process energy, you will be declared dead, and your adventure will be over," I respond, "Nope." He sounds like an atheist materialist who thinks this physical life is all there is.

As a fellow atheist materialist, and former evangelical xtian, I can attest that making that switch definitely involved a shift in how one approaches life. Frankly, I'd have never considered FIRE if I had remained a xtian.

 

[dixonge]

odd that I re-read this whole thread just to find that the last post was from ...

me! LOL

I am just now finally reading this book. One of the things that seems to have confused people here is the idea of running out of money *before* you die. This is a quote from the first chapter:

“the novelty of explaining why you should die with zero—was also what turned many people off. Wealthy people obviously aren’t the only ones afraid of running out of money: It’s a fear I heard about over and over from people who’d heard my ideas. So you’ll see me addressing this fear throughout the book. After all, nobody would ever try to die with zero if they’re afraid they’ll hit zero before they die.”

So it seems as if he definitely addresses this concern. As he should.

 

[Sunset]

odd that I re-read this whole thread just to find that the last post was from ...

me! LOL

I am just now finally reading this book. One of the things that seems to have confused people here is the idea of running out of money *before* you die. This is a quote from the first chapter:

“the novelty of explaining why you should die with zero—was also what turned many people off. Wealthy people obviously aren’t the only ones afraid of running out of money: It’s a fear I heard about over and over from people who’d heard my ideas. So you’ll see me addressing this fear throughout the book. After all, nobody would ever try to die with zero if they’re afraid they’ll hit zero before they die.”

So it seems as if he definitely addresses this concern. As he should.

I see 2 ways, annuities and suicide. I bet he only talks about the annuities one.

 

[Koolau]

I see 2 ways, annuities and suicide. I bet he only talks about the annuities one.

Either way is what I would typically describe as "crude, but effective." YMMV

 

[Music Lover]

I see 2 ways, annuities and suicide. I bet he only talks about the annuities one.

Actually, he suggests spending money while you can still enjoy it rather than saving a bunch to prolong your last few weeks at life's end.

 

[Koolau]

Actually, he suggests spending money while you can still enjoy it rather than saving a bunch to prolong your last few weeks at life's end.

That's an interesting subject that he would be unable to address in depth in such a book. Both my parents ended their days in a locked ward at a very nice nursing home. They didn't know where they were most of the time and they had long-ago established DNRs, etc. Still they had no "final exit" strategy and weren't capable of carrying it out if they had. No one was trying to prolong their lives, just maintain them with as much comfort an dignity as possible. It cost a small fortune which drained their assets to essentially zero.

If I'm making a point it would be that none of us knows our end-of-life situation. Grasping for a few more days, weeks, or months is likely NOT something most of us would do. Still, our bodies may live on long after we find life to be less than enjoyable. At that point it IS nice to have enough money to make the process more bearable. YMMV

 

[Doingitwrong]

We were dying broke without buying a book, but that was a decade ago.
Amazing how a little healthcare “reform” changed our net worth from zero to a million dollars in short time.
Might buy the book.

 

[Bigdawg]

If I'm making a point it would be that none of us knows our end-of-life situation. Grasping for a few more days, weeks, or months is likely NOT something most of us would do. Still, our bodies may live on long after we find life to be less than enjoyable. At that point it IS nice to have enough money to make the process more bearable. YMMV

Bolded by me. I don't know if $ makes it more bearable. My DS passed on Monday. She went into the hospital around 10-15 July. From then until now she has been in the hospital, nursing home and finally a hospice center. All were nice. The nursing home was average. Hospital and hospice very nice. She didn't pay a dime because she litterally didn't have one. Her estate consists of a falling down house and a 9 yr old car. Total estate maybe 40k. She owes 80k in student loans. Now forgiven. My point? Having a few extra k's while living your last days/weeks/months most likely won't matter.

 

[retire202052]

Bolded by me. I don't know if $ makes it more bearable. My DS passed on Monday. She went into the hospital around 10-15 July. From then until now she has been in the hospital, nursing home and finally a hospice center. All were nice. The nursing home was average. Hospital and hospice very nice. She didn't pay a dime because she litterally didn't have one. Her estate consists of a falling down house and a 9 yr old car. Total estate maybe 40k. She owes 80k in student loans. Now forgiven. My point? Having a few extra k's while living your last days/weeks/months most likely won't matter.

I completely get your point. My point would be to not waste your 50's, pinching and scrapping, just to hope to do the things you want to do in your 60's and 70's. It's a fact our bodies begin to "break down" into our 60's.

 

[Markola]

^^^^ It’s a little scary, because the time horizon is so long, and it’s no fun to project portfolio declines, but I believe we are effectively trying to maximize our 50s and 60s. We both went part-time/remote in our mid-50s, started using the Rule of 55 with our 403bs, have been scratching the travel itch, experimenting with snow-birding, spending more time with aging parents and making our home more enjoyable.

But the fact is, our portfolio is projected to decline from a high of $2 million down to a low of $600,000 or so, based on our best inputs and two different Monte Carlo simulations, because we’re spending 7% or more to make our live-more-now lifestyle work. Things that give me comfort about the choice:

1) The portfolio declines are projected to flatten once we take max SS at age 70.

2) Home equity is growing well in our particular walkable/college town/state capital neighborhood and should equal $1M at age 70 and $2M at age 80.

3) We can work more than we are currently if the SHTF soon.

4) This semi-retirement life we have built is wonderful, as expected!

 

[Bigdawg]

I completely get your point. My point would be to not waste your 50's, pinching and scrapping, just to hope to do the things you want to do in your 60's and 70's. It's a fact our bodies begin to "break down" into our 60's.

^100% agree with this point.