Why aren’t more folks FIRE?

[Stormy Kromer]

I know lots of folks that could have FIRED in their 50's and now are still working into their late 60's and 70's. They are farming and it has never been easier or more profitable. I have no beef with them, except many of them have children who want to take over the farm and have been a loyal servant to the family on the promise of getting to buy in. Now, many of these children are in their 40's or 50's waiting for their chance to buy the farm. Parents won't sell because of the tax implications, plus it is easy now and their kids will keep helping work for peanuts and a promise.

 

[Koolau]

It seems that if you have a decent degree, or are a tradesman, or work for a decent company with overtime available, and are willing to move for a job opportunity, that it would be nearly impossible to not earn at least in the $80,000 to $90,000 range with 20 or more years experience. Some get out of college earning that. The key is the willingness to move. I only knew where I grew up, got out of college, and thought that’s where I’ll stay. The market there could care less that I had a college degree, and opportunities were close to minimum wage with no benefits. In fact, my degree gave me less opportunities than others because I was over educated for most jobs.

I know how bad it is there now because I bought a house there cheaply enough and intended to move back decades ago, thinking an improving job market meant I could do that. Well, a rising tide does not raise all ships. So I’ve had tenants who are of the absolute worst kind. I’ve learned that who you want to rent to—newly married professionals starting out—doesn’t exist. They’ve been driven out like me. Trust fund babies own their own places. Which means that you are left renting to low income dregs who can’t afford to live there and should have moved out a long time ago for better opportunities.

Where I came from, sad to say, is a good place to VISIT. You have to move for opportunities or even to survive!

I was blessed. I was born, raised, educated K-12, plus two university degrees and w*rked in the same city - all over a 60 year period.

The pay was good, the lifestyle was affordable. I was able to save. I never felt deprived, though I did travel for a change of scenery.

Finally, I had to move but it was for the retirement life I wanted. YMMV

 

[Koolau]

I’m so old, I thought what’s James Taylor have to do with it and then realized you meant Taylor Swift.

 

[Koolau]

I had a high teacher define 'rich' and I've used that definition ever since:

You are rich if you can quit your job today, never have to work another day in your life, and maintain your current standard of living until you die.

Others may disagree, and that's fine. It works for me.

I think that definition describes a goodly number of us here. That's why I've never hesitated to call us (those of us on FIRE Forum) "rich" (in quotes). Yet, as we have seen in a couple of other threads, our incomes and savings are rather dramatically different. So, I'll keep looking for a good definition of "rich" but I won't lose sleep over it.

 

[Dtail]

I think that definition describes a goodly number of us here. That's why I've never hesitated to call us (those of us on FIRE Forum) "rich" (in quotes). Yet, as we have seen in a couple of other threads, our incomes and savings are rather dramatically different. So, I'll keep looking for a good definition of "rich" but I won't lose sleep over it.

Sometimes that lifestyle before retirement is not maintained in retirement and the rich happiness quotient is still the same or better.
Events for me like spending for 2 people from $500 to the max of $2,300 for meals (not regularly) and over $1,000 for 2 concerts tickets doesn't happen anymore and I don't miss it.

 

[Redbugdave]

"Enough" is not a number. It is an attitude.

 

[athena53]

After years of pondering and coaching several people on personal finance, I have came to a conclusion that FIRE has something to do with a combination of genetics, mindset, attitude, personality and psychology. It has nothing to do with intelligence, income, skills, logic, etc. although each of those helps accelerate the journey.

Yes, it's definitely an attitude. It helps if you grew up with good examples but that's no guarantee, either. (Some learned from growing up around poor examples.) I've had train-wreck friends (and an ex-husband) who considered available credit lines to be money they could spend, who paid the minimum due every month, who confused "needs" with "wants". I've mentioned this before, but I live in a town with poor demographics (education level, income, number of single-parent households) and I see shiny new F-150s and SUVs in the grocery store parking lots. Lots of elaborate tattoos and manicures, too.

All my comments above is for people with opportunities and some education to afford those opportunities. There is a whole section of society who can't even imagine ever to stop working. They would never make enough money to just live the basic lifestyle; to have food on the table and roof over their head.

And sometimes I wonder if they spend it all because they don't think that they can save enough to make a difference. I also see plenty of comments on finance-related articles saying that whatever you save, "the government takes it all" for your long-term care- which is true if you rely on Medicaid and don't have enough assets left to pay back the nursing home.

I distinctly remember telling myself "I want a life where I can eat "king cone" any time I want".

Not into king cones but I once got jealous when a childhood friend saw something she wanted at the local store and had the money to buy it. I got an allowance but it wasn't much. I didn't covet what she'd bought- I coveted her ability to just buy it. I was in Europe last week, window-shopping in jewelry stores as usual, and saw a few baubles I liked but didn't need. (I have plenty at home.) Sometimes just knowing that if I REALLY wanted to spend $25,000 on that ring I could do it is enough.

 

[Drifter]

Great stories. It doesn't bother me what folks do with their lives and money. But I can't stand the complaining from people that spend and spend and then complain Joe Bob has more money or they need a raise. It seems those less fortunate are jealous and angry at those more fortunate. I also know there are alot of people who don't understand money or have taken the time to want to understand it. It is just easier for them to complain about what they can't afford while they spent their check on tattoos, booze or other non productive stuff. I adopted the "Let your money work for you so you don't have to work for your money" plan years ago and that has been my focus while doing without.

 

[MrBojangles]

The reality is that easy money is hard to come by. The closest thing I'm aware of to that (other than inheritance, winning the lottery, or marrying into money) is to have a passion that matches a high-paying career.

This is something I didn’t realize until a much later age than I should have—or didn’t want to accept. I spent years in the public sector applying for corporate jobs for which, save for a connection I didn’t have, thinking that once I got in the door of major corporation X, once I got in the door I would quickly rise to the top, not that I had any qualifications to do that, and, even if I did, not as if there wasn’t competition for that top job from equally qualified individuals, if not more so. And I wanted the job purely for the salary and perks. I had this fixation about General Electric, and, amazingly, despite what I stated, above, I am sure I couldn’t have botched it up as much as long time Jack Welch protege Jeffrey Immelt did!

I grew up lower middle class in an area where there were many trust fund babies. I wasn’t one of them, and, at best, was treated as not one of them. I had this mentality, seeing that for many of them, their finest accomplishment in life was graduating from an Ivy League institution with a C average, usually after being on suspension for bad behavior or bad grades, or both, a few times. I thought, coming from a town of a few thousand, I could return wealthier than most. It couldn’t be that hard. It wasn’t until later that I discovered, through the internet, how big these fortunes were. Fortunes obtained with no regard for regulations, monopolies, and prior to an income tax. You can’t compete. Stuff like GE, a sugar monopoly, Crayola crayons, Remington firearms, all 19th century wealth.

My parents told me that wasn’t the real world. I didn’t want to believe it. I saw folks who never had to work a day in their life have incredible money and I reasoned if I showed up for work every now and again, that’s all it would take. I recall being about 13 or 14, in a rented house, which, after you paid the rent and put food on the table, there wasn’t exactly a whole lot left over, I had the audacity to ask my parents how much is in my trust fund and when does it kick in? Still, over 40 years later I know my father is resentful I had the gall to ask that. (Likewise, I still haven’t quite recovered from the shock of the response I got, LOL, that being zero and never).

Of course you have no way of controlling this, but the very best way by far to achieve an income is by inheritance. The stuff my parents, I, and probably many on this forum had to worry about was a non issue for these fortunate individuals.

 

[Lorenzo]

Another thought as to why more folks aren't FIRE: financial advisors. The widespread use of FAs is not exactly conducive to FIRE.

 

[Diogenes]

... I thought, coming from a town of a few thousand, I could return wealthier than most. It couldn’t be that hard. It wasn’t until later that I discovered, through the internet, how big these fortunes were. Fortunes obtained with no regard for regulations, monopolies, and prior to an income tax. You can’t compete. Stuff like GE, a sugar monopoly, Crayola crayons, Remington firearms, all 19th century wealth.

The 19th century wealth didn't endure; thus the successful book, "The Missing Billionaires". What instead we have today, is tech-entrepreneurship. I tried that, and failed. But most of today's truly great fortunes, were built from tech start-ups, or perhaps their cousins in finance. They're not from inheritance, marriages or lottery winnings.

This brings me to a personal frustration with labels, the retirement-advice industry, and financial advice overall. What is "wealthy"? I don't consider some small number of millions of dollars to be wealthy... not even close.

We hear lots about strategies to accumulate a few million dollars. Save, invest, whatever. Then, maybe retire. We hear next to nothing, about how to turn $10M into $100M or $1B. We view the person with $100K, who wants to reach $1M, as aspirational. We view the person who already has $10M, who wants to reach $1B, as a greedy [expletive]. But here's the thing: a reasonably industrious person, who doesn't have a debilitating handicap or enormous burden or some great misfortune in life, can probably turn $100K into $1M, with some combination of hard work and savings. Now go try using those methods to turn $10M into $1B, or even $100M! Won't work!

For obvious reasons, on this Forum, we have a prevailing narrative... when you amass your $10M or whatever, congratulate yourself, and declare that to be "enough". Retire. Hey, I also want to retire... but I'm sorry, folks... I can't help struggling with the concept of "enough". But I also have run out ideas for how to grow further... my "human capital" is waning, and investment-skill is nothing to brag about. There is mismatch between desires and capacities, all while hearing that hey, the very concept of such desires is louche and excessive. Is it? Is that how those 19th century plutocrats saw things?

 

[Dtail]

Some or many of us have discovered that retirement is just great and there is not a constant desire to get to a certain number. The ego that existed in work for me, is not the same in retirement.

 

[MrBojangles]

The 19th century wealth didn't endure; thus the successful book, "The Missing Billionaires". What instead we have today, is tech-entrepreneurship. I tried that, and failed. But most of today's truly great fortunes, were built from tech start-ups, or perhaps their cousins in finance. They're not from inheritance, marriages or lottery winnings.

This brings me to a personal frustration with labels, the retirement-advice industry, and financial advice overall. What is "wealthy"? I don't consider some small number of millions of dollars to be wealthy... not even close.

We hear lots about strategies to accumulate a few million dollars. Save, invest, whatever. Then, maybe retire. We hear next to nothing, about how to turn $10M into $100M or $1B. We view the person with $100K, who wants to reach $1M, as aspirational. We view the person who already has $10M, who wants to reach $1B, as a greedy [expletive]. But here's the thing: a reasonably industrious person, who doesn't have a debilitating handicap or enormous burden or some great misfortune in life, can probably turn $100K into $1M, with some combination of hard work and savings. Now go try using those methods to turn $10M into $1B, or even $100M! Won't work!

For obvious reasons, on this Forum, we have a prevailing narrative... when you amass your $10M or whatever, congratulate yourself, and declare that to be "enough". Retire. Hey, I also want to retire... but I'm sorry, folks... I can't help struggling with the concept of "enough". But I also have run out ideas for how to grow further... my "human capital" is waning, and investment-skill is nothing to brag about. There is mismatch between desires and capacities, all while hearing that hey, the very concept of such desires is louche and excessive. Is it? Is that how those 19th century plutocrats saw things?

Like, like, like.

If you have enough to cover all modest expenses, or even a comfortable lifestyle, a few million can do that. But what you say is correct, not really much out there on how to get from a few million to $100 million or a billion. It’s TOUGH to do. I thought I would do that, it’s not so easy. I say I would like to be a billionaire, and that remains true, but even $100 million would work! That would allow for spending easily if $3 million a year which covers most things I can think of. Houses in the $3 to $5 million range, a similar beach house, etc, all easily attainable on that and meanwhile your money continues to grow.

I’ve amassed a few million and I’m small potatoes. It takes at least $100 million to be anything these days.

 

[38Chevy454]

.......
For obvious reasons, on this Forum, we have a prevailing narrative... when you amass your $10M or whatever, congratulate yourself, and declare that to be "enough". Retire. Hey, I also want to retire... but I'm sorry, folks... I can't help struggling with the concept of "enough". But I also have run out ideas for how to grow further... my "human capital" is waning, and investment-skill is nothing to brag about. There is mismatch between desires and capacities, all while hearing that hey, the very concept of such desires is louche and excessive. Is it? Is that how those 19th century plutocrats saw things?

The majority of folks on here retired with less than $10M. The 7-figure club far outnumber the 8-figure club; or even less in the 9-figure club.

 

[MrBojangles]

The majority of folks on here retired with less than $10M. The 7-figure club far outnumber the 8-figure club; or even less in the 9-figure club.

Absolutely. It’s logical and doable, it’s easier to amass 7 figures than 8 or 9, but it creates a more modest lifestyle in which you MUST watch your finances.

 

[Finance Dave]

I was a landlord for 14 years, and I saw bank statements for tenants...so I know where their money went.

Rent to own furniture
Buying groceries at the gas station that cost more than a grocery store because it's "easier"
Lottery tickets
Gambling
Tanning booths
Nail salons
Peer pressure to buy the latest and greatest cell phone, TV, etc.
Buying more car than they can afford, on a 7 year loan
Not maintaining things, which results in them having to buy things more often (for example, overloading the washing machine to get the loads done faster)
Buying things they will only use once then throw away
Cigarettes
Tattoos
Jewelry
Hair styling to excess
Beers with the guys after a "hard day's" work
Daily coffee at Starbucks
Too many streaming services

I evicted a tenant once, and they left so much stuff in the house I had to pay a company to fill a 40 foot trailer with it to get rid of it....cost me $900 which I charged back to them, sued in court for $5,400 (damages, etc.) and won, and garnished their wages for 19 months to get it all paid. I offered them in writing that if they paid me prior to the court hearing I'd take $4,000...but they said they couldn't "afford" it. What struck me is that they paid for all that stuff and then just left it there...toys, an old piano, end tables, mattresses, lamps, dishes, brooms, you name it. I bet over the years they paid $20,000 for all that stuff...then just left it there.

 

[Diogenes]

Absolutely. It’s logical and doable, it’s easier to amass 7 figures than 8 or 9, but it creates a more modest lifestyle in which you MUST watch your finances.

Personal questions of avarice aside, I struggle with the notion of declaring that "enough is enough", meaning that it's time to stop fanatically saving, and time to start spending (within reason). It just seems to me, that if we have any plausible capacity to amass more - be it through earning, saving or investment - then we have the responsibility to do so. As my human capital further diminishes, it might still makes sense to retire, even to do so very early... but that's a statement about my ability as an employee, and not about philosophical stoicism or whatever we call it, about freeing oneself from the crushing yearnings for more-more-more.

 

[marko]

Personal questions of avarice aside, I struggle with the notion of declaring that "enough is enough", meaning that it's time to stop fanatically saving, and time to start spending (within reason).

To me, "stopping saving and start spending" misses the mark.

I'd suggest that one should save and invest to the point that the savings generate enough income on its own to cover the lifestyle's expenses, and then some.

That way, you're never in the mindset of spending down what you worked so hard to set aside. Rather, you're just exchanging your old work income for another income source, never touching the "savings".

To me, that is the difference between being just rich and being wealthy. Done right, the fears of running out of money, inflation erosion, and catastrophic market failures greatly diminish and you don’t have to play the "X years expenses set aside" game.

As such, maybe this allows you reach the "enough" point where your focus can shift away from gain for gain's sake and more toward more how your resources become a tool instead of a number.

 

[pb4uski]

... That's bad news for us FIRE-types. A person who retires at 55 has some explaining to do! "Hey, I graduated from college at 20 and immediately got my engineering job, where I stayed for 35 years", rings hollow... like prevarication or embellishment. Who would believe it?...

I graduated from college at age 21, about 6 weeks later started working in public accounting (had the job locked in when I graduated but decided to take a break) and over a 35 year career in finance and accounting only had two 1-2 week breaks between jobs (but had one instance where I was double-dipping salary continuance and pay from a new job for about 8 weeks). Retired at age 56 after 35 years of working other than vacations and short time off between jobs. Believe it because it is true.

 

[pb4uski]

Personal questions of avarice aside, I struggle with the notion of declaring that "enough is enough", meaning that it's time to stop fanatically saving, and time to start spending (within reason). It just seems to me, that if we have any plausible capacity to amass more - be it through earning, saving or investment - then we have the responsibility to do so. As my human capital further diminishes, it might still makes sense to retire, even to do so very early... but that's a statement about my ability as an employee, and not about philosophical stoicism or whatever we call it, about freeing oneself from the crushing yearnings for more-more-more.

That is exactly what I did... I declared "enough is enough"... or really more at "we hve enough" and I resigned. I wasn't old enough to retire according to the company's policies and didn't want to stay working another 6 years to "retire".

When I retired I was making well into six-figures (at 50% time) and liked my job and my colleagues and clients. To be frank, it was a pretty easy job the last few years and was 50% time for the 5 years or so before I resigned.

From a human capital perspective did I leave a lot on the table... sure... but so what? We had plenty. Continuing to work would have just further enriched the federal and state governments (to the tune of $60k in my last year of work) and our two kids, but I wanted that time for me!

Money isn't everything. I felt absolutely, positively no responsibility to amass more. That's crazy thinking!

 

[RetiredHappy]

I graduated from college at age 21, about 6 weeks later started working in public accounting (had the job locked in when I graduated but decided to take a break) and over a 35 year career in finance and accounting only had two 1-2 week breaks between jobs (but had one instance where I was double-dipping salary continuance and pay from a new job for about 8 weeks). Retired at age 56 after 35 years of working other than vacations and short time off between jobs. Believe it because it is true.

+1 Same here. Graduated with my BS in Computer Science and Economics at the age 22, first job as an Analyst Programmer even before I went through convocation (graduation ceremony). I had never gone a day without being paid from a corporation/business from the age of 22 until I was 53 yo. I picked up my MBA in a part-time program (3 hr classes Mon-Wed-Fri and lots of project work on Sundays and Saturdays) for 3 years while I was working. I changed companies 3 more times, each time landing a job before leaving the previous job, one double dipping, between company 3 and 4. Then started our own business in 2007, while I continued to be paid for early separation until end of Feb 2008. Sold the business and retired at 53 yo. I loved working, whether for mega corp or for ourselves. I am open to going back to work but I don't need the money, so maybe not.

 

[pb4uski]

^^^ Similar story here. I got my MBA but technically it was a full-time program so for 18 months I worked full-time and went to school full-time... with a 2 year old daughter at home to boot. DW was a saint during that 18 months. Classes were all day Saturday one week and all day Friday the next with three one-week residencies at Boston, Washington DC (government and business) and INSEAD (on international business at France's top business school). My employer paid the bills AND gave me every Friday off for more than a year.

Interestingly, when we did the DC residency, we met with Dick Cheney, who at the time was a Congressman, but impressively had been POTUS Chief of Staff at age 34. We also had an unscheduled meeting with a Senator who happened to be the uncle of one of our classmates.

 

[RetiredHappy]

^^^ While I was working and pursuing my MBA, my son was 5 yo when I started the program. I had an absent first husband, my son's father, who decided to simply take off and work in another country when my son was barely 1 yo. I hired a live-in foreign maid/helper since my son was 1 month old as I worked the whole time. My son was effectively raised by my maid when I was not at home. You know how that marriage went, I got tired of the whole arrangement. So as a single (divorced) mother, I continued to work and raise my kid. I believe we shape our own life and career the way we want it to. I have never felt that I was disadvantaged in any way. The 4th company that I worked for moved me twice to different countries and my son went with me. I guess that is the advantage of being a single parent.

 

[imjustawarrior]

Absolutely. It’s logical and doable, it’s easier to amass 7 figures than 8 or 9, but it creates a more modest lifestyle in which you MUST watch your finances.

I'm not sure what you mean by MUST watch your finances. There are many lottery winners (8 and 9 figure) that go bankrupt. Obviously, they needed to watch their finances. There are many 7 figure people here that probably don't watch their finances in a strict sense. I know I don't sweat dropping money if it is a good value. I'm still value driven with my finances, but I don't watch them very much. For example, I just had foot surgery, which I deemed a good value. I didn't blink an eye at the cost. I won't cut back on anything just because I dropped a several thousand dollars.

 

[SJhawkins]

This thread gives a lot to think about, good read.

It's interesting from where we started to where we are mid 50s.

Married young, early 20s, we both came from low to middle income families. Some of the best years of our lives where being broke by most people definition.

Somehow we have always been happy, saved along the way, in our little starter home 30+ years latter and still happy. Best part we can now afford a snowblower rather than a shovel. Why we are still working I ask myself every week/day. By any definition we FIRE if we choose, just not ready to let go yet, it's such a odd feeling.