Is "Barista FIRE" actually FIRE?

[bada bing]

What do you see as the difference between that and FIRE?

So, if you get so you can live by the 4% rule with investments (index funds), would that be considered “secure income”? That just seems like FIRE to me, so just trying to understand the difference.

It's the difference between having your retirement insured or being self insured. Literally. SS, annuities and pensions are insurance contracts. Your portfolio is an asset, not a contract.

 

[CO-guy]

So. . .

FIRE = Financially Independent Retired Early
FI = Financially Independent
Barista FIRE = not Financially Independent, but "close" to it and w*rking to get there, stepped back from the high-paying high-stress j*b (I've also seen the term 'Coast FIRE')

Does that make sense

From that list, I suppose I'm "Coast FIRE" but I've described it here as a "FIRE glide-path." I'm approaching three years since I quit my full-time career. I hit my FI number a year before I quit, which added a bit more cushioning. Then I was asked to stay on half-time remote, which further fattened the FI number. I describe my journey as a glide-path because my consulting side-gigs turned into a full-time business, and so I've been winding things down over time. So far, I'm down from consulting 40h/wk to 20h/wk and heading toward zero.

My better-half is still fully employed, and so I'm able to get insurance through her. She has just over 4 more years before she becomes pension eligible in her current position, and that's part of her own personal FIRE plans. However, we don't need it. We don't need any of my consulting income. We don't need any of her employment income. While some of this "bonus" income goes to continuing to fatten our FI number beyond our original target, much of it goes to local charities and extravagant vacations.

All that said, I think "Barista FIRE" is far too simple of a term to describe the variety of approaches people take in retirement.

 

[HI Bill]

"Say I was FI but wanted to go on a once-in-a-lifetime type vacation that was above my normal budget. I could see taking a couple of consulting gigs to cover the costs.

Or right now, I take consulting side gigs on top of my normal job not because I need the money, but because it allows me to spend more freely when I travel.

In both cases, they are pretty small one-offs. I think it’s when you rely on “barista income” on a regular basis that you’re not really FIRE."

If you don't have enough invested to cover desired lifestyle, then IMHO, you're not FI. Most here who are truly FIRE have enough assets to cover 'lumpy' expenses such as replacing a house roof, a budget for toys, recreation, travel, etc. IMHO, Barista FIRE is not FIRE. Barista are not financially independent if they need to work to support their spending. I'd also caution that if one retires with too thin a margin, they may be unhappy later in life when they can't afford what they want to be able to do. For example, my annual budget is 2X my core expenses. This allows me to buy toys, travel, and keep up the house. I'm able to spend 4X what I did while I was actually wor$king because I saved ENOUGH.

 

[Montecfo]

It's the difference between having your retirement insured or being self insured. Literally. SS, annuities and pensions are insurance contracts. Your portfolio is an asset, not a contract.

Right. And insurance never fails, we all know that.

Seriously I remember when I first encountered the word "SIRE" here I found it rather puzzling. So are those folks who rely on invested assets just "IIRE" i.e., "Insecure income retired early"?

I think folks make the own assessment of what "security" is. I would say security comes from a low withdrawal rate. But nothing is 100% secure.

 

[Koolau]

My guess is that Barista FIRE is about securing health insurance prior to MC. With that in mind, I'd have to respectfully suggest that Barista FIRE is not FIRE. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with depending upon a j*b if one really needs/wants it. It does add a vulnerability to your retirement. All the best.

 

[SunGuy]

loads of different FIREs: lean, middleclass, sink, dink, fat, barista, sbo(small business owner), rental/landlord/airbnb, gig fire like uber, expat/ 3WR (3rd world rich)

 

[Diogenes]

So

So, if you don’t mind my asking, you’re FI without the job? Meaning you don’t need the income? If so, I’d consider that full Fi vs barista.

My material needs are paltry, so I'm FI with even low financial wherewithal. But unless our current global situation becomes an arrant catastrophe, the personal financial wherewithal should be, knock on wood, OK.

The key point is that I'm not emotionally ready to retire. But neither am I interested in a traditional cubicle job. So, I became a professor. But unlike most tenure-track professors, I'm not sweating getting tenure, because this is an encore career, and further work is optional. If I can last the 6-year period leading up to tenure review, and then get denied, that's OK. I will have by then presumably done some soul-searching, rekindled my various hobbies, and reached a sense that professionally I've done "enough" to justify full retirement, with no disclaimers or asterisks.

What makes it "Barista" in my reckoning is that the pay is lower than what I'd had in my former career, the hours are irregular (by design), and I am competing with people 20+ years younger... that is, normal career-track assistant professors. I'm older than our department chairman and most of the senior faculty, though we do have a smattering of fellows around 80, and a few adjuncts even older than that.

 

[planuntilthefisthits]

My material needs are paltry, so I'm FI with even low financial wherewithal. But unless our current global situation becomes an arrant catastrophe, the personal financial wherewithal should be, knock on wood, OK.

The key point is that I'm not emotionally ready to retire. But neither am I interested in a traditional cubicle job. So, I became a professor. But unlike most tenure-track professors, I'm not sweating getting tenure, because this is an encore career, and further work is optional. If I can last the 6-year period leading up to tenure review, and then get denied, that's OK. I will have by then presumably done some soul-searching, rekindled my various hobbies, and reached a sense that professionally I've done "enough" to justify full retirement, with no disclaimers or asterisks.

What makes it "Barista" in my reckoning is that the pay is lower than what I'd had in my former career, the hours are irregular (by design), and I am competing with people 20+ years younger... that is, normal career-track assistant professors. I'm older than our department chairman and most of the senior faculty, though we do have a smattering of fellows around 80, and a few adjuncts even older than that.

Sounds like fun!

Don’t you have annual reviews that could result in a foreshortened 2nd career?

 

[marko]

FI and RE are two different things. You need the first to achieve the second. It's math. It doesn't work in reverse and 'almost' doesn't count.

Wishing otherwise doesn't make it so.

 

[Surewhitey]

From that list, I suppose I'm "Coast FIRE" but I've described it here as a "FIRE glide-path." I'm approaching three years since I quit my full-time career. I hit my FI number a year before I quit, which added a bit more cushioning. Then I was asked to stay on half-time remote, which further fattened the FI number. I describe my journey as a glide-path because my consulting side-gigs turned into a full-time business, and so I've been winding things down over time. So far, I'm down from consulting 40h/wk to 20h/wk and heading toward zero.

My better-half is still fully employed, and so I'm able to get insurance through her. She has just over 4 more years before she becomes pension eligible in her current position, and that's part of her own personal FIRE plans. However, we don't need it. We don't need any of my consulting income. We don't need any of her employment income. While some of this "bonus" income goes to continuing to fatten our FI number beyond our original target, much of it goes to local charities and extravagant vacations.

All that said, I think "Barista FIRE" is far too simple of a term to describe the variety of approaches people take in retirement.

Almost identical situation as us. Left the office in Feb 2019 & came up with a plan to not freak out DW (more than I did). Been OK so far doing my thing while she finishes her idea of what she needs. She likes what she does so I'm continuing my thing, albeit part time-ish.

We were FI in 2011 while living abroad until we returned in 2015. My idea changed until we got to 3x that # in a MCOL area. Pretty sure we're good now. DW is w*rking 4 day WW for 2 years now and we're traveling much more, so we're PT-FIre... So many scenarios to consider.

 

[Midpack]

I'm not sure why anyone would care about pinning down a label. You can call yourself whatever you want, and what does it matter what others think? I'm not worried about whether others are FI or not. First world problems...

 

[street]

If you work because you want to, you can say you're retired.

If you work because you NEED to, you can't.

Exactly!!

 

[street]

I'm not sure why anyone would care about pinning down a label. You can call yourself whatever you want, and what does it matter what others think? I'm not worried about whether others are FI or not. First world problems...

Yes, it is as simple as what you stated.

 

[Fermion]

If you anywhere close to thought you had enough to retire there is no need for a part time job. Just cut expenses. Almost all of us are living it up. It does not take much reduction in expenses to equal the income from a 20 hour part time barista type job.

Stop eating out so much
Cut/shop around for cable/phone
Drop down to one vehicle
Vacation cheaper

I would do all of the above before I would consider increasing my income by working in retail. Actually any increase in income removes a lot of the freebies that are available and also increases your taxes.

 

[CaliKid]

Call it what you want. If the Barista FIRE people are happy then great. I can not muster the energy to worry about whether they say they are FIRE or not!? If you want to say they are not really FIRE then great. Whatever. Not my business. The more happy people in the world the better!

 

[pjigar]

Been there, considered that. I would rather call it Barista Wanna-be FIRE. I considered such "retirement" at one point which seems like a lifetime ago. What I quickly realized that everything must go as planned and I have to always watch the expenses like a hawk. It seemed too risky. The core issue was burn-out so I changed my job and kept planning for a "real" FI. It took a decade longer but now we are truly FI. RE will come someday but I am not too much worried about the RE part. In fact, dare I say it, I enjoy my w*ork now since I can say no to things I don't want to work on and that has been a game changer. I am more effective/productive than ever and people look up to me as an expert. I am so grateful to be in such a position.

 

[bonvoyage]

There are many ways of coasting

We have more enough in savings that my wife could retire any time she wanted to. However, after working hard for a lifetime climbing the corporate ladder, she is now a senior executive in her company. In her words she is "getting paid a lot for relatively little work". She will freely admit that she is just coasting along and thoroughly enjoying her work. At some point things will surely change, and when that happens, she will retire.

 

[thod]

My interpretation of Barista FIRE was:
Someone has reached a point where their portfolio, left alone, will grow by itself in a few years to reach whatever number someone has calculated that they need to FIRE.

So, all someone has to do at that point is make enough money to finance their current spending and stop needing to contribute to their portfolio from earnings.

If that is the case, then you just need to get any job, that pays enough to finance your current spending (assumed to be low already.) Quit the high-stress job and take something easier for a few years.

 

[Andre1969]

This "Barista-FIRE" thing sounds like a fancy way of saying "Under-Employed." While "Under-Employed" doesn't sound like a very flattering thing to say, you can be under-employed by choice (gave up a high-paying but stressful job for something that pays less but is more enjoyable/flexible), or by circumstance (high-level manager laid off, couldn't find an equivalent job, and is now slinging burgers for McDonalds).

Also, if you're still working because you have to, you're neither FI nor RE, so that shouldn't even be part of the phrase!

I guess if you're doing it willingly, you could also call it "Glide path," "Coasting," "On Cruise Control," etc. Those all sound nicer than "Under-Employed."

 

[CO-guy]

It seems there may be more that one definition of Barista-FIRE.

1. To paraphrase @thod it's someone that's financing their current lifestyle while waiting for their portfolio to hit their FI number.
2. Someone that's fully FI and being a barista for fun.

Frankly, I may be biased by the term "barista" because I have friends that own a coffee business and, while quite profitable, it's not fun to make coffee. Stained hands, cracked fingers, and the pain of standing on your feet all day just isn't fun.

OTOH, I'm looking at a Guest Services position at our local ski resort for next season. I enjoy being outdoors and it's fun to cruise around the resort on skis all day. I have some buddies that have been doing it for the past few years that are encouraging me to join them. Plus, it's as close as I'll likely get to fulfilling my teenage fantasy of being a "ski bum." Then again, I can just quit if I don't enjoy the position because I'm fully FI and would just be doing it for fun.

 

[Major Tom]

I'm not sure why anyone would care about pinning down a label. You can call yourself whatever you want, and what does it matter what others think? I'm not worried about whether others are FI or not. First world problems...

+1. I was going to say the same thing but didn't want to come across as the grumpy contrarian in the thread Now you've said it though, I couldn't agree more. All a person has to do is figure out how much money they need in order to live the life they want, look at their various sources of income and, if they need more money, find a way to get the extra income. As you say, they can call themselves whatever they want. My identity doesn't revolve around being called a retiree, or any other single, double, or even triple-barreled label. Shoot, if someone wants to work full time and call themselves retired, I might think it a bit odd, but will quickly move on to wondering what I'm going to do today, and what/where I'm going to eat.

 

[surprising]

I don't know the utility of any label as it can mean different things to different people. To me it seems like a moving target to be considered FI. I certainly feel like I'm FI, but having extra money never hurt anyone, and maybe with extra money, you can also scale up your spending and do things you never thought you'd be able to or even want to do.

 

[SnowballCamper]

I'm Barista-FIRE. I make my own coffee like many of you here do My coffee altar ... and yours?

 

[Dalton]

I thought about that too and am glad you brought it up.

Say I was FI but wanted to go on a once-in-a-lifetime type vacation that was above my normal budget. I could see taking a couple of consulting gigs to cover the costs.

Or right now, I take consulting side gigs on top of my normal job not because I need the money, but because it allows me to spend more freely when I travel.

In both cases, they are pretty small one-offs. I think it’s when you rely on “barista income” on a regular basis that you’re not really FIRE.

That sounds reasonable, and consistent with how I look at it. "Barista income" takes my focus straight to part- or full-time work, but I'm sure there are other way to look at it.

 

[jollystomper]

I recall, during the pandemic, with the market down and many of those "barista jobs" and "side hustles" drying up, many "Barista FIRE" people were posting in blogs, forums, and articles about their panic. They were saying their "FIRE" was not possible without the work/side gig. That is why I do not see them as being truly FIRE.

Many "Baristia HIRE" or "Barista WIRE" (Hoping/Wishing I'll Retire Early) is a better term...