MSN Article: "What Would You Sacrifice to Retire Early?"

[MarieIG]

We are not seeking to get another pet at this point, due to the desire to travel, and a concern about the pet while traveling.

There is a current custody issue involving a particular pit bull which son #1 left behind when he moved out. The remaining kiddos are taking care of her at this point but . . .

 

[Teacher Terry]

Travel is one reason we have downsized from 4 pets to 2 as they died. Much easier to travel with 2. When we cruise we get a sitter.

 

[SpinDoctorTX]

I never bugged my kids about having children because it’s none of my business. Heck they don’t even want pets. It ended up being a good thing because 18 months ago she had a tennis ball size tumor removed from her brain stem and is still recovering. She can only work 3-4 days a week and is exhausted most of the time. I let my 3 kids know as teenagers that I wasn’t raising grandchildren so they had better be responsible. I always knew I wanted kids and my sister knew the opposite.

Smart lady.

I felt as your sister did, & thankfully my siblings were good producers (whew for me- no parental pressure!).

That said, I love being an aunt to my 7 nieces & nephews, and we are active in the lives of the ones who want us to be. DH has 2 sons from another marriage, but they were grown by the time we met. Lucky for me I get to be a grandma- skipped right to the fun bits. It doesn't hurt that they are in Pensacola (9 hour drive to a beautiful place), so we weren't conveniently around for babysitting duties.

 

[SpinDoctorTX]

You are making a common mistake when it comes to describing childfree people. Many of us do value kids even though we don't want to have any of our own. Many of us (like me) do volunteer work with kids and are loving and generous aunts and uncles. Just because we would rather have pets than kids doesn't mean we value kids less than pets.

Exactly.

 

[SpinDoctorTX]

At the risk of beating a dead horse (clearly not a scientific survey), I find the word choice fascinating.

Calling a choice to have children/pets or not have children/pets as “giving up” children or pets makes the strong implication that having both is normal and lacking either is abnormal.

I think this is one of those cases where the opinions of the survey writers end up there in the results. It’s a pretty common bias (so much so that some/many people don’t recognize it) but I sympathize with anyone who decided kids weren’t for them only to face constant comments from family or friends who are really trying to justify their own decisions.

And I say this as a parent, with pets!

Thanks for that. People can really get into other folks business.

 

[brett]

We got rid of children, pets, and plants. Pets went first. Children went second when they were each in their very early 20's and finished post secondary. The plants were next when we downsized to a container in order to travel. After nine years of early retirement we have zero desire to ever have plants or pets again...other than the occasional basil plant whose leaves we eat.

I view those articles purely as filler. Lots of holes, misconceptions, generalizations in them to make them next to worthless. Same with so many articles on retirement planning and budgeting. Especially the ones from the banks and brokerage houses.

No one is going to get serious about retirement or saving for early retirement by reading that fluff.

My view is that you either plan for retirement or you don't. Sadly, many do not.

 

[YoungSaver]

Didn't read the article.

I give up on going out a lot. I give up on nice things. I buy a good percentage of my stuff used. The past few years I have given up on concerts and weekend trips. I will never get a dog, purely because of financial reasons.

I do miss the concerts.

 

[EarlyBirdly]

Every time I see an article that claims you should estimate your retirement income needs based on your pre-retirement income, it makes me absolutely crazy......

UGH! This is some of THE ABSOLUTE WORST "advice" people can be given. You need to save based on EXPENSES (which in some cases may even increase in retirement due to HC costs), not income (as most of us here already know).

No wonder people who do not follow sites like ours are so confused about retirement.

Absolutely agree. It amazes and saddens me that most have no ability to grasp this very simple concept.

Most retirement calculators use the income replacement farce and really mess up those who don't have an inherent understanding of their own finances. They then become confused, doubt their own abilities, and proceed to throw their hands up in the air and RUN to the nearest Financial Advisor ( Car Salesman ). PERFECT. "Mission Accomplished" by the Financial Industry...

 

[LarryMelman]

It amazes and saddens me that most have no ability to grasp this very simple concept.

It used to annoy me too. But when you ask many people how much they spend, they have no idea. If you instead ask them how much they save, that number is often so low that you can conclude that yes, they really do need 85% or 90% of their income.

Unless they change their lifestyle and reduce spending. But that's another discussion altogether.

Folks that have a budget and know their spending habits have no need for a "% of income" rule of thumb. But we are the minority. That's what saddens me.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

DW and I chose to not have kids, either...and I assume it helped achieve FI a little earlier. And we prefer to be "childfree" as opposed to "childless." I fully admit that I am selfish in that I don't want to have to be responsible EVERY SINGLE DAY for taking care of a kid...not in my bag of tricks.

We have fostered before, and while it can be satisfying...it can also be quite challenging.

 

[aja8888]

Pets are constantly discussed on our neighborhood Facebook page and people are constantly out walking them. That latter is obviously a good thing as it’s a good motivator for seniors to get out and walk multiple times daily.

Yeah, that's me too! At least 4 walks per day with Toby to keep my 10K step goal met. Walking Toby also give me someone to talk with that is not critical of my lifestyle choices or is giving me "orders" .

 

[kcowan]

I had an obligation of sorts. Dad was the youngest sibling of 5 kids from Glasgow. He was the only one with two surviving boys and my brother chose not to marry. So I had two boys and there are now three little kcowan boys carrying on the family name (and two girls I spoiled). Plus we had them early and never did a cost/benefit as that would have killed it!

Eventually we were lucky enough to retire in style because we made the boys become self-sufficient at an early age. Plus I took lots of risks and many of them panned out.

 

[HI Bill]

I had an obligation of sorts.

+1. I too, had an obligation of sorts. My father was one of three siblings, and the only male. I was his only child, and male. Carrying on the family name was up to me, but I didn't marry until 48, and my wife doesn't want kids (I don't really, either, as it would mess up dive/travel retirement plans). So, I'm not going to meet my obligation!

Even though my family name won't live on, my dad's sisters had lots of kids, who had lots of kids, who had lots more kids...so the genes are safe.

 

[audreyh1]

My husband’s last name is very rare, but he never worried about perpetuating it!

 

[pjigar]

It used to annoy me too. But when you ask many people how much they spend, they have no idea. If you instead ask them how much they save, that number is often so low that you can conclude that yes, they really do need 85% or 90% of their income.

Unless they change their lifestyle and reduce spending. But that's another discussion altogether.

Folks that have a budget and know their spending habits have no need for a "% of income" rule of thumb. But we are the minority. That's what saddens me.

Some of us can retire early because the most people are naive. I still encourage people to understand "spending concept" for their financial health but I rarely succeed.

 

[tb001]

Maybe the more interesting question is what would you *not* sacrifice to RE. I don’t consider not having kids or pets a sacrifice for many people. I am now surprised at what measures some on the lean fire plan are willing to go to, but I think if this had been around when I was in my 20s, it would have appealed to me.

 

[Teacher Terry]

If you really want kids and/or pets I doubt someone would forego either just to retire early. I can’t put a price on either. They are all priceless.

 

[HI Bill]

Some of us can retire early because the most people are naive. I still encourage people to understand "spending concept" for their financial health but I rarely succeed.

Most people just spend their income, or a little more. Most retirees who live off of social security likely have to ratchet down spending and their standard of living. For some who retire later, this may work out okay because of Bernicke's Reality Retirement Plan...reducing one's inflation-adjusted spending yearly spending by 2-3% per year starting at age 56, and then stabilizing at age 76 to keep up with inflation. Not the way I want to live, but for non-planners/non LBYMers, it's reality.