We are living a lie...

[youbet]

Nobody said you had to RE after 10 years... so many strawmen here...


You do not have to save 50 to 70% of your money..



..

You agree with the author.

 

[W2R]

Thing is, RE is not just one decision. Each day, every one of us could throw in the towel and decide to go back to work.

I've been retired for 5014 days, if I calculated it right just now. I have made the decision to stay retired each and every one of those days, based on the fact that I love being retired.

Retirement has been the happiest part of my life, thus far. So, I think it was a terrific decision for me.

 

[youbet]

The biggest problem is that the Rule of 25 or 4% rule, drawn from the Trinity Study, actually does account for maintaining spending power over 30 years by increasing the draw by the rate of inflation every year. He clearly does not know that.

Thanks Gumby! I Went back and found that comment at the end of the Rule of 25 discussion and he does have that wrong.

I do agree with him though that needing a full 4% WR when retiring extremely early is dicey, even if the 4% does account for historical levels of inflation. Lately, here on our forum it seems like many would agree since WR’s under 4% are common. Mine, for example, is well under 4% and I didn’t really RE but rather worked until the ripe old age of 58.

 

[youbet]

Unfortunate. But at least he understands the 4% rule might not work for 50 years. On the other hand, it might work just fine. Or, it might not work for 30 years Who knows what the future might hold.

True, but would you endorse a 45 yr old RE’ing needing a full 4% WR to cover basic spending?

 

[dknighd]

Thing is, RE is not just one decision. Each day, every one of us could throw in the towel and decide to go back to work.

I've been retired for 5014 days, if I calculated it right just now. I have made the decision to stay retired each and every one of those days, based on the fact that I love being retired.

Retirement has been the happiest part of my life, thus far. So, I think it was a terrific decision for me.

I could not probably return to my old Job. But I could probably find a job if I had to. But I'd rather not.


I'm pretty sure the secret is to be flexible.


I retired younger than 65. But over 55. So not in the FIRE thing. We balanced saving and spending for many years. I hope our good luck continues.

 

[Andre1969]

I was always under the impression that the 4% rule gave you roughly a 95% chance of not running out of money after 30 years. If you want to plan for a longer period, you need to shoot for more like 3-3.5%.

 

[dknighd]

True, but would you endorse a 45 yr old RE’ing needing a full 4% WR to cover basic spending?

No

 

[FREE866]

And I thought I was doing great all these years since I retired. I'm going to call my old boss today and see if I can get my old job back...

Send in your resume today so you can start tomorrow. This way you won't miss those exciting conversations with co workers about how their weekend was

 

[Car-Guy]

Send in your resume today so you can start tomorrow. This way you won't miss those exciting conversations with co workers about how their weekend was

I'll take that under advisement.......


Edited posted two minutes later:

 

[Bigdawg]

And I thought I was doing great all these years since I retired. I'm going to call my old boss today and see if I can get my old job back...

Wait a minute he died 10 years ago while "on the job". Maybe I'll try his boss, he knew me pretty well to... Wait a minute, he died while still employed too. Come to think of it, maybe this retired "living" isn't so bad.

I've always touted the FI part of FIRE and not so much the RE part. To me, the more important part is the FI. You can be FI w/out being RE. You cannot be RE w/out being FI.

I've failed miserably. This week for example: Tomorrow night I officiate a volleyball match. On Wednesday I have 2 officiate 2 matches. Free on Thursday but the three-day weekend is crazy. I have to play a golf scramble on Friday followed by officiating 2 volleyball matches. I am scheduled to umpire a DH on Saturday and a triple header on Sunday. Pray for me. I may survive. I'll check in on Sunday night so you will all know if I made it or not. I definitely need to rethink this RE thing. Thankfully the FI part is solid.

 

[TheWizard]

I've always touted the FI part of FIRE and not so much the RE part. To me, the more important part is the FI. You can be FI w/out being RE. You cannot be RE w/out being FI.

I've failed miserably. This week for example: Tomorrow night I officiate a volleyball match. On Wednesday I have 2 officiate 2 matches. Free on Thursday but the three-day weekend is crazy. I have to play a golf scramble on Friday followed by officiating 2 volleyball matches. I am scheduled to umpire a DH on Saturday and a triple header on Sunday. Pray for me. I may survive. I'll check in on Sunday night so you will all know if I made it or not. I definitely need to rethink this RE thing. Thankfully the FI part is solid.

They pay you a small amount for officiating, right?

 

[Bigdawg]

They pay you a small amount for officiating, right?

$155 for a JV volleyball followed by the varsity match. Fall baseball is $100/cash as a single umpire. I make aprox 10-13K/yr officiating sports. Love it. Don't need the $.

 

[dknighd]

I almost bought a coffee cup that said


I don't know how to act my age since I've never been this old before.

But then I realized, I did not need another coffee cup.

We are entering uncharted waters. If such a thing exists.

 

[jazz4cash]

I really enjoy these articles and wish there were more of them. I may be wrong but somehow I feel very strongly that discouraging people from ER is better for the rest of us that have figured it out.

I see they promote annuities from their website. OK, I get it now.

 

[brett]

Does this mean we should not be flying to Morocco next week for a month of independent travel?

Or perhaps not open that bottle of inexpensive Argentine Malbec in preference to saving it for a special occasion?

Sure...there are some financial institutions and financial advisory firms that promote FIRE. They promote/ sell annuities, questionable investment strategies, etc for their own self interest. These articles, IMHO, are designed for those who believe everything they read and do little research or knowledge gathering on their own.

For many Fire consists of a three legged (or more) income stream made of pensions/annuities, investment income, social security like income, and other income.

All it takes is a pen a paper, a calculator, and some of that basic financial research to understand one's options. An article like this is hardly the answer. The financial decision on whether one can afford to FIRE when and in the manner they wish is, IMHO, not rocket science. It is basic math.

 

[Texas Proud]

You agree with the author.

I doubt it, but I did not read the whole article...



I believe in FIRE... but as mentioned above I guess my definition of RE is not theirs... I think 55 to 60 is still RE...

 

[audreyh1]

I was always under the impression that the 4% rule gave you roughly a 95% chance of not running out of money after 30 years. If you want to plan for a longer period, you need to shoot for more like 3-3.5%.

Right.

 

[Winemaker]

I believe in FIRE... but as mentioned above I guess my definition of RE is not theirs... I think 55 to 60 is still RE...

+1

 

[Out of Steam]

Most here work on and on and on past today’s millennial definition of FIRE, myself included. Many here seem to be following Rampton’s lead and holding off on RE until their 50’s and, yes, some even into their 60’s.

Why?

My wife and I retired at 58 and 60. Why?

Mainly college tuition. I also didn't want to take the pension reduction for retiring sooner unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Out of Steam]

I was always under the impression that the 4% rule gave you roughly a 95% chance of not running out of money after 30 years. If you want to plan for a longer period, you need to shoot for more like 3-3.5%.

Agree on this. I once made an estimate of what it would have taken for my wife and I to retire at 50, with a much smaller pension and a pre-retirement expense level, including staying in our DC area house.

I ended up using a 3% draw, and came up with about 4X what we ultimately retired with.

 

[Gumby]

Why did the young wife and I retire at 58/60 respectively? Mainly because we got a relatively late start. In order for me to go to college at all, I had to join the Navy and get them to pay for it. Which meant I had to work for them for 5 years after graduation. Then, the young wife and I took turns (her first, then me) going back to graduate school to change to the careers that we wanted. At that point, we got no financial assistance and had to pay in full, in cash. So one of us worked while the other went to school. We were 31/33 with a net worth of zero when I finally graduated from law school and we really got started in the race. It took us 27 years from that point to retire.

I think the best we could have done is to shave 5 years off that (which was actually my plan at one point). Ultimately, however, we wanted to live a good life both before and after retirement. It would be no fun to live a life of forced scarcity just to retire to a life of actual scarcity a few years sooner. And we generally liked our work, which certainly helps.

 

[Texas Proud]

Why did the young wife and I retire at 58/60 respectively? Mainly because we got a relatively late start. In order for me to go to college at all, I had to join the Navy and get them to pay for it. Which meant I had to work for them for 5 years after graduation. Then, the young wife and I took turns (her first, then me) going back to graduate school to change to the careers that we wanted. At that point, we got no financial assistance and had to pay in full, in cash. So one of us worked while the other went to school. We were 31/33 with a net worth of zero when I finally graduated from law school and we really got started in the race. It took us 27 years from that point to retire.

I think the best we could have done is to shave 5 years off that (which was actually my plan at one point). Ultimately, however, we wanted to live a good life both before and after retirement. It would be no fun to live a life of forced scarcity just to retire to a life of actual scarcity a few years sooner. And we generally liked our work, which certainly helps.

I think that is one of the problems with some of the younger generation... they do not want to sacrifice to get ahead later... i know that my DD does not and it bothers me at times.. but it is her life.. she is spending her college funds faster than she should and will run out prior to graduating..


I have heard many stories about Gen Z not wanting to put in any extra time.. so I asked my son what was his working hours (he is millennial) and he said 8 to 5... and he works from home 3 days a week.. Not the worst thing in the world as I did not want to work long hours when I was young but it was required...



The other is the big quit... lots of people just quitting and moving on... the economy is going good enough to do that but I (and others here) had to go through a good number of recessions where there were lots of layoffs...

 

[Chuckanut]

Does this mean we should not be flying to Morocco next week for a month of independent travel?

Or perhaps not open that bottle of inexpensive Argentine Malbec in preference to saving it for a special occasion?

No doubt. It’s the Downspout Hotel in Joplin for you. The nearby Insomnia Cafe serves a mean chili-dog as their 2:00 AM special.

I’ve always understood the 4% recommendation to mean we can spend 4% inflation adjusted each year for 30 years and be very sure that the money will last 30 years. After 30 years? You’re on your own. Therefore it’s a great [-]rule[/-] guideline for those who are 65+ and above and don’t care about leaving a sizable estate.

 

[Major Tom]

This article is proof to me of the saying that if you don't think something is possible, you are right.

 

[Lewis Clark]

Could you comment on that further? I didn’t see a real issue with his discussion of the “Rule of 25.” I’m sure you’re right, I’d just like a little help understanding what I’m missing.

The 4% guideline (or rule of 25) calls the final balance a success if it will be greater than or equal to zero after the 30-year time horizon. This guideline does not assume capital preservation. It assumes capital depletion.

And the guideline does take inflation into account, by assuming the annual withdrawals are increased each year to match inflation.