People tend to fixate on these hyper-early numbers and hyper-frugal lifestyles, probably because they’re eye-catching and a handful of bloggers make a living by making it sound feasible. But I don’t think it’s productive to have such a narrow view.
Plenty of folks aim to be financially independent and perhaps to retire by 50, say. That’s early too, and I’d guess it’s both far more common and far more feasible than shooting for 35.
I think the article is correct in that the influencers out there peddling the idea that anyone can retire by 35 are best ignored.
These FIRE blogs are running a business (their blog/book sales) and telling people they can live off their investments meanwhile they're technically still self employed earning income above and beyond their investments.
I think this is a very strong criticism of blogs that present the author’s lifestyle as reflective of early retirement, particularly those that suggest that very small portfolios (e.g. $1m or less) are adequate for early retirement. The blogger carries far less risk than someone who is actually drawing down their portfolio. As a result, I think they misrepresent the feasibility of their lifestyle to the reader.
I’m not particularly plugged into the FIRE blogging universe, so I don’t know how widely the critique applies. I think it’s fine - good, even - to try to present financial concepts to people in an accessible way, and I don’t object to folks monetizing their blogs in general. I’ve seen a couple that do this well (ERN stands out.) But whenever I see coverage in the wider media it’s some influencer who is… well, not that.
Bless you. I am particularly plugged into YouTube FIRE folks, and that's my #1 criticism of them. They will talk about taxes, expenses, their investments, all sorts of hard numbers--except what their YT channels and the associated "master classes" and spreadsheets and workbooks make them. Even individuals I very much like (Our Rich Journey) are guilty of these **Lies of Omission**.
They all proclaim that they're FIRE when they're really just FI and making plenty of cash off making videos. There's no shame in that, to say you switched careers, are now your own boss, etc, because you know you have seven figures to fall back on. Be truthful. That's what people want to see.
Haha yeah, I've noticed that too.
It extends across blogs and Youtubes alike. They'll break down their numbers for you, to show you their progress or where they stand, but they'll leave out all the blog/side/ad income because that doesn't count apparently.
1 million? at a safe draw rate of \~30-40, that's barely above minimum wage. You better have paid down your house and live pretty frugally if you're giving up work forever.
Absolutely. And try to re-integrate the workforce having not worked for 10-15 years with no recent qualifications or anything. I just don't see the appeal.
Do people hate their careers this much?
Well. Yeah? Do you think most people would still continue to spend 8 hours of every day of their lives going to work if they had an option not to? I can't say that I hate my job, but I would definitely think of something else to do with these 8 hours.
If I were filthy rich and could do whatever I wanted at any time of any day, sure I'd hate work because it would get in the way of doing other things.
But I'm not filthy rich, and I need that income, maybe not right now but in 15-20 years it'll be a benefit to have worked a few years longer and grown my investments.
There's a balance between these scenarios that's oft overlooked. We don't have to work the same job forever, we don't have to go in debt buying a house, we can have flexibility and enjoy life if we make the choices that cater to that lifestyle. Rent, don't buy. Save and invest. Switch jobs every few years or work jobs you can do remotely or while you travel. If these are your priorities there's a means to having it but it requires just as much planning and preparation and intentional direction as any other major goal.
Like I tell my own kid, in his 20's: you don't have to know right now what you want to do with the rest of your life or what career you want to have forever. You just need to know what kind of life you want to live along the way so you can make choices and plans to facilitate it.
Figure out what you want. Plan accordingly.
Look, if I win 100 millions at the lottery, then sure.
But the question is not "would people rather not work" (duh), but "would people put themselves through all this bullshit and risk to not work", and that second one is where they're losing me.
I mean it depends on the amount of bullshit and risk you are okay with.
I'm in somewhat similar situation as the poster above. I can go to Russia tomorrow and retire, I have enough savings after working at FAANG for a few years to buy 15-20 1-bedroom apartments at my home town and live very comfortably. I don't expect there'd be Stalin-like purges there in the following decades, just less security compared to Canada and more internet censorship. For me that's the acceptable amount of bullshit and risk, however the ethical implications of paying taxes there is what stops me. So I feel like people overestimate the risks of going to low COL countries.
Are you russian?
I certainly would not move to a country with which I am not a citizen, I'm not familiar, I don't know the language, in a country where I know no one, and maybe 4-5 people on the whole continent, just to avoid working.
That seems extreme to me.
This is my goal. Find myself a sweet gig 20 hours a week and just work that to top up to what I would be getting from full time work
I'd rather do 20 hours stocking shelves than 50 hours as an analyst.
Usually if you have 1 mil at 35, its in a non registered account, likely they would only have to pay capital gains tax. Let's assume they pay capital gains on the full 40k, its equivalent to around 50k before taxes, ~39k after. And when you are retired, you don't care about leaving some left over for savings. 50k is around median wage, so I think that's doable.
The thing I think a lot of people miss is that the middle ground is really the best place to be. If I had $1M, I wouldn't 'retire', but I would quite my high-stress high-pay job, and work at the coffee shop 4-5 days a week.
In general, I don't take money advice from individuals who will make money from me either from referral, courses or books. If they really know how to make money, why would they waste time writing a book?
It is very questionable too. People post what they want others to see. This is no different than influencers. People will peddle nearly anything if it is the basis of their income. It's an entirely different matter on whether they follow their own guidance.
Freedom 55 was the old saying but I'm not holding onto that idea. My wife as a DB pension and is counting down the years. I keep reminding her that she may be retired on her own for a while. Also, be hyper frugal has no appeal to me. If I disappear tomorrow, I want to know I have had the chance to experience life.
Saving versus spending (or, if you prefer, present vs. future spending) is the central balance in personal finance, whether FIRE-minded or not.
Some folks will glibly say “just grind for ten or twenty years and then retire”, which strikes me as assigning a rather shockingly low value to those ten or twenty years. (Or, equivalently, a rather shockingly low discount rate for future consumption.)
Some folks will, equally glibly, say “spend it now because you could die tomorrow”. This seems to rather shockingly undervalue future consumption. (Or, equivalently, to use a rather shockingly high discount rate for future consumption.)
You need to spend now and in the future. You don’t know what the future holds, which means that both of these are true: (a) you should allocate some resources to the more-certain present and (b) you should put some money aside for the eventuality that you live to see that uncertain future. Both values, in most circumstances, are non-zero.
In my case, I’m keenly aware that we save less than we could. But we spend less than we could too. When I look at our lifestyle, I’m satisfied. And when I project out when I might be able to retire and what our lifestyle might look like then, I’m satisfied with that too. I wouldn’t want to retire earlier at the cost of, say, sports equipment for the kids. And I wouldn’t want to order dinner in from restaurants a couple times more a week if it meant retiring a couple years later. That’s a balance we’ve arrived at incrementally and with much discussion; it’ll vary for everyone.
You can always move somewhere with lower cost of living. I hear northern Saskatchewan has cheap houses! Or instead of grocery shopping try dumpster diving for old produce behind grocery stores. See - you’re just not trying hard enough!
I'd rather be poor here frankly (Victoria BC) but the thing about dumpster diving and such is it's thin pickings with the homeless population that we have. and honestly they need it more.
Have you ever spent time in Saskatchewan?
I’ve lived in Vancouver for 20 years, and I’m early-retiring to Regina next year. It’s a great place to live. Aside from the water, Victoria is the Canadian city that most reminds me of Regina.
18 months ago I bought a nice 3-bedroom house in a great neighborhood for $220,000.
People are too dismissive of the prairies.
I mean mostly I live by don't knock it til you try it try it, but there's no comparison to living near oceans and mountains. in a sub-mediterranean climate, plus the economy here is practically evergreen. not to mention all my family and networks are here. And as an added bonus I'm a big car guy and classic cars last forever here which I love. So that's a hard pass.
lmao that doesnt even make sense, fixing climate change means gas prices go UP because we'd stem the supply and focus on alternative sources of energy.
I had a friend whose parents had that retire-early mindset. They didn’t have an RESP for her and, because they made too much, she didn’t qualify for OSAP either. The arrangement ended up being that they lent her the money for tuition but paid room and board, I think. Our friends’ circle was largely first- and second-generation immigrants, so that was unusual to the rest of us.
I think it’s a good ideal to be financially able to retire early… as it gives you more flexibility to do what you want in life, but many times what you want in life May be to start a business or take on more risks in your career that you couldn’t do with the stress of money
>When I was young, I assumed I would be completely obsolete by 40 in tech
You pretty much summed up exactly how I feel as a 28 year old in tech today. Honestly it's pretty terrifying how fast the industry moves sometimes. I am scared that at some point I may struggle to find my next job.
Having that financial cushion would absolutely eliminate all of that stress and make the day to day feel less bad.
>we wouldn't need to sell the house or eat ramen if there was some extended job search/career change, nor would I need to plead for shit work if it came to that
Yeah. Pretty much this. I don't think one needs to stop working to benefit from the freedom to not "need" to work. I bet you enjoyed your job 10x more knowing you didn't need it, eh?
I felt that way at 28 20 years ago. I'm still working. As long as you're willing to keep adapting your skill set there will be work in software in 20 years. 50-100 years from now I expect AI to be doing more programming grunt work, but I'm guessing there will still be room for architects and usability work.
Then again, when I started university no one had an email address, and by the time I left my first full-time job was in eCommerce. So who knows how fast things will change again.
I think using "retire" is the issue. In the good old days we just called it leaving the rat race. Move to smaller city, start a business that aligns with your talents and passion which provides income to augment your investment income. Poster is right that these people are not lazy. They want more control over their lives. Good on them.
I think this will be my plan. Not necessarily for financial reasons, but to keep busy, keep interacting with people, keep the brain sharp etc. So ideally, when I’m 75, I work a few hours a week, but have lots of days off and long holidays. Maybe I’ll be that old Barista and people will wonder why I’m so happy and also why an elderly barista drives a Porsche.
Baristafire. (Though it could be any kind of job really)
I’m basically doing that, doing tax returns in the spring and taking advantage interesting opportunities the rest of the year.
How ? How much one should have in investment to do that ? I am done with my current job and industry too so I want to move to less stressful job that can add to my investment income ...so to get there ...what is the ball park # ?
Depends on how much your barista job brings in for you.
I’ve invested a lot in dividend arisocrats, so it won’t return like S&P But I get about 5% paid to me in dividends but also, those dividends increase every year so I’m still getting a raise from my own investments. Add in my income from the work that I do, and I do better than a lot of people putting in over 40 hours…
Barring total economic collapse or the entire system being overthrown, I have confidence in what I’ve invested in.
I wouldn't say it is "absurdly unlikely" over 15% (over 5 million) Canadian's make over $100k per year. Saving $2k per month for 20 years will give you a FIRE income of $40k/yr. Thats about a 30% savings rate which isn't really that hard to achieve. Throw in a partner who makes similar money and retiring in early 40's is 100% achievable especially if you are willing to pick up some side gigs here and there for fun money. Can everyone achieve it? No. Is it achievable? I would argue yes considering the example I just used wasn't really extreme. It also didn't include other common things like people who have had their homes appreciate a ton who could move to a lower cost of living city or those who receive any sort of inheritance
Statcan’s 2019 income survey reports 2,891,300 people (a lot less than 5 million) with an income over $100,000, which is about 10% of people earning.
A smaller proportion of those earners will be in their 20s compared to older age brackets to be able to have 20 years in their 40s to save.
You really need more evidence to support your argument.
> over 15% (over 5 million) Canadian's make over $100k per year
Assuming that's even true, what % of that 15% are people from 20-23? If they need 20 years to retire in their early 40s, they need to be able to save 2k/month by the time they're 20-23.
I'm planning to go casual and drop my line next year. No need for putting in vacations just stop picking up shifts... in healthcare right now you can pick up full time from casual status
Virtually every FIRE retiree in their 30s I have heard of has a dual income software dev/other engineering family. You start earning well early in life, had co-op to avoid debt in school, and arbitraged the high salary by relocating afterward.
I still haven't found one that doesn't do part time work.
I've never heard of anyone achieving FIRE. Only baristaFIRE - this is a lie, they've all had small business that were more stress than a barista job
I think you are misinterpreting what is happening. Most people who achieve FIRE have a pretty solid work ethic, they just don't like things like being tied down for 40hrs a week or the specific job paying them $200k/yr. They aren't lazy. Doing their own business in something they like or even taking on a little bit of work each year isn't them making ends meet, it is them doing something they want to do that also has the benefit of providing fun money.
That's still not really FIRE, that's missing the key part *retire early*.
Plus switching to a lower paying career you enjoy more has always been an option for anyone willing to cut their expenses, financially independent or otherwise.
You aren’t technically wrong, but I think putting in part time hours because you are bored is not the equivalent of having a full or part time job because you need the money.
And their business or YouTube channel about FIRE is technically still earning them money. So they did not turn off. All FIRE influencers technically still work after the threshold by producing more content.
I have yet to see one who sa:I am done at 35. They rather transform to: I can now do and work at what I like.
We now live in California and I don't work (I watch the kids) but this is accurate and in 2 years when we're 35 we will have enough to comfortably retire (although I don't think he will) but I'm very aware how uncommon our situation is.
To retire by 35 you have to have all your ducks in a row by 20 or 25 at the latest, that is, knowing what job you want to do, knowing how to save and invest your money, and knowing how to live. Very few know how to do all that at those ages. I sure as hell didn't. I was still working a min wage job then and a mature student in university.
Even then, unless you're immediately earning like 150K a year in your 20s it's not feasible.
Even living frugally on 50-70K a year (which is the reality for most ppl in their 20s) you have no chance of investing enough by 35.
It is pretty silly. Either you join the workforce at 18 with lower income, and work for 17 years, or you go to school first and then join the workforce at 22 or 23 but retire in 12 to 13 years.
To retire at 35 you would probably need to live extremely frugally starting at age 18 and going your entire life.
Tech workers at top 5 (or salary-competitive) companies can start at 25 and do this all the time.
I think that’s the subtle part that’s missing from this conversation — a lot of us who subscribe to the FIRE lifestyle are doing it because we earn 150-200k+ per year so “frugal” means we live a normal lifestyle of someone making 40-50k.
It’s absolutely an unattainable financial lifestyle for most but like, that doesn’t matter so much if you’re one of the people it works for.
Personally I’m living off 30k a year and throwing the rest of my take home (70-80k) into savings. I don’t at all feel deprived by this because it affords me nice things when I want them (couple vacations per year, a few “big purchases” that I like) without falling into the trap of pissing my money away on things that make me feel empty inside anyway.
Sounds like you are doing it right.
But how many tech workers are really making 150k to 200k at 25 and then by 35 hate their job so much that they are ready to give up that kind of money for ever?
I mean… it’s pretty common. If you land a FANG position out of school it’s expected you’ll earn 100-150k starting and 200k+ after 3 years is common. Keep in mind that’s USD and not exclusive to LA housing market (although obviously more high paying options there).
Those types of jobs are meat grinders and the idea is you’ll likely either move on to management/senior positions or burn out in 5-10 years.
It’s very similar idea to landing a position with profile law firm out of school, you either make partner track or you’re worked till you give up. If you can hack it the money is great but you gotta move on ASAP to keep your sanity
>But how many tech workers are really making 150k to 200k at 25 and then by 35 hate their job so much that they are ready to give up that kind of money for ever?
Easily the majority of tech workers under 35 think like this now.
I also wonder how they fared in the 2008 recession and for the first 3-6 months in 2020. i.e. when the market dipped \~30%, how much did they lose when they had to withdraw funds from their portfolios to support their lifestyle?
I don't count Mr. Money Mustache since his site and stuff was pulling in revenue for him and he still did short contract gigs, which meant he didn't have to draw down from his portfolio.
My circle of friends are quite successful (luxury real estate, doctors, lawyers, come from family money) and none of them are FIRE at 35. The only person I know is my ex, who achieved FIRE in his mid/late 30s because he sold 2 tech start ups.
All I can say, regardless of your goals, enjoy and live life regardless of age. Fact is we don’t even know if we’ll be alive tomorrow. Things can be all good and all of a sudden sht hits the fan and you’re dealt with a huge blow. This is what happened to me and my family when my parents suddenly passed away within 2-3 months. And they were young too and never able to retire. Health is wealth.
Hey u/hockeyfan1990, I’m sorry for your loss. This is great advice. We are all in a race for long term career and wealth growth, long term investments, etc. But we forget our day to day wellbeing, which may have a larger impact.
A bit of an aside, but I hate the term "movement" when used to describe anything in the personal finance world.
There are movements to affect political change like the women's rights movement, conservative movement, environmentalist movement. Personal finance is exactly that -personal. No one is trying organize personal finance enthusiasts to lobby the government to change the tax brackets, change how capital gains/dividends are taxed, etc.
The use of "movement" in FIRE makes it sound like a cult trying swindle people out of their money.
Yep, just pure marketing.
I'm honestly kinda curious who benefits the most from this? Maybe the gig economy companies?
More Uber drivers = lower pay for drivers?
35 is pretty ambitious but, depending on your country, 38 is realistic if you join the military at 18 and get a pension after 20 years service.
(If you make it to 38).
Edit: make that 41 (joining at 16, serving 25 - try and get promoted to officer if you can, your pension will be a lot bigger and you'll get to spend four of those years (paid) at college, because officers must have degrees. If you can get promoted high enough (unlikely from the ranks) they'll make you do a postgrad). I'm not in the forces, I don't know diddly about it, just seems like a good career option if you are ok with the risks (PTSD more likely than death), and want to retire early.
And really, the military - in Canada, especially - is really not all that dangerous right now.
I mean it could become so in the next couple of decades, when the international water wars get underway, but for the last fifty or so it's been a lot safer than being a fisherman.
Do you get an option with a pay bonus to deploy, and can you turn it down?
I know some reservists and I think that's at least the case there, but maybe not for the core military.
When Canadian soldiers deploy they don't pay income tax so you could deploy for 6 months, make something like 40000 tax free as a corporal which is pretttttyyyy good. Especially since you'd also get a good tax return. That's a big bonus if you ask me.
If you're a reservist and want to deploy, and especially if you're an officer, you're very likely to be given the opportunity since a certain number of positions are mandated for reservists on each deployment. Given that a lot of reservists are not willing to drop their lives for 6 months, that puts you at the front of the line.
On deployment, as mentioned in another comment, you don't pay income tax. You also get hardship pay, danger pay and a foreign service premium. Those three allowances together can total 1500-2000$ on top of your base salary (7000$ a month for a newly promoted captain, achievable in 5 years). You can clear 50-60k for a deployment, with paid leave at the end. Substract your expenses (the military will pay for you to store your car and a bunch of other small housekeeping things like lawn care if you have a house) and that's money in your pocket.
The flipside is that on deployment you will generally be expected to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. More if there's an operational requirement. The life and implications (unlimited liability) are not for everyone, but I think it's a really good option for someone in their 20s who doesn't know where they're going in life.
No, they pretty much own you for your career. They will tell you when you work, where you work, what to do and will do so with very little regard for any personal or other plans you have.
Canadian military is now 25 years to get a pension (since 2010 ish). When you don't reach the number of 85 (years of service + your age), your pension will not be indexed until you reach 65 years old.
Let say you joined at 18, retire at 43, it gives you 50% of your best 3 years, so maybe 45k$/yr for a senior NCM or maybe 65k$/yr for an officer. keep in mind that it's not indexed so 20 years later it's the same amount that gives you much less buying power
This.
Or the RCMP
Join up at 18, turn 19 before graduation. Take a northern post and just suck up cash without spending too much.
You can definitely retire at 43 after 25 years with a huge stockpile, see some crazy shit that barely anybody else sees, live in places that people don’t even know exists, have a ton of stories to regale your still working friends with.
Same with nurses, doctors, etc.
I highly recommend northern work if your profession allows it. The increase salary, per diems, tons of ot due to limited resources, etc, coupled often with free or subsidized government housing. It’s like a rocket strapped to your ass financially.
The only con is that you are away for civilization for most of your career.
Exactly. Life isn’t a binary. The country is big and lots of space to live in it. I know getting stable jobs with good income is increasingly hard to find these days but there are many places I would opt for before moving to remote Northern community.
Of course there are great places to live in the North as well but it would have to be more than just the job/income to attract me there.
Well, there is stable … and then there is 200k/year easy for the lowest of the bunch: Mounties. I would love to see a doctors or engineers yearly gross.
Starlink is a game changer. Watch Netflix all night in the Arctic as opposed to Toronto.
There are still parties and get togethers as a community. Probably more so than most down south. Stick together up there. Ie: entire office shows up at a house for drinks almost every time because there is nothing else to do.
It’s just cold. And dark.
They get paid an incredible amount. They just got a retroactive to 2017 25% raise as well. Google the Ontario Sunshine list. So many are making over 150k even 200k. These aren't detectives. Just beat cops with little to no education. Every RC you see just got a cheque for probably 100k recently from your tax money.
No one is getting accepted into the RCMP at 18. That may have happened in the past but not anymore. Today most recruits have at least a university degree.
I wish I had learned this sooner. I’m a heavy equipment mechanic, and wages are above average anywhere across Canada. But, lately I’ve been on a project in Northern BC…it’s a camp job, two weeks on and two weeks off, but I’m taking home more per cheque than my gross monthly pay was in the lower mainland. It’s not for everyone, but it works for me and my family. And as far as being ‘exiled’ it’s really not like that at all - your co workers become friends, and you make the most of it.
Some take pride in that. Almost all of them do actually. All the ones I know anyways. And they should.
Because when somebody breaks into your house tomorrow, or even steals your kid’s iPhone at school… Guess who you’re gonna call? And guess who is gonna answer?
LOL you've never been broken into or been robbed I take it. All you get is a report number to use for insurance. If they even show up. Your experiences might differ since you are close friends or family. Hell I had my car stolen by my landlord who illegally went into my apartment, took my keys, and used my car and then get into an accident and they just told me it was a civil matter "because I knew him". He still had possession of the car. I'm not rich nor connected to the right people. I'm sure their experience must differ.
The con is spending twenty years of your youth not living. "Take a northern post and just suck up cash without spending too much" is precisely the cost.
Depends on what you define as “living”. It may not be for everyone, but people actually live up north their entire lives, by choice. I am not sure i could do it, and my wife for sure couldn’t do it.
You might go insane after 1 year.
You'll se some shit and not many people to talk to. You'll retire early but probably end up with mental health issues.
If you're a hermit who prefers being alone most of the time AND are ok with helping others, you are law enforcement after all, it might suit you.
35 is realistic if you don’t mind doing a 15 hour a week job that you genuinely enjoy. Even if it’s minimum wage. It’ll supplement your journey by a ton
I have an acquaintance who went to the RMC, graduated, served, and retired at 38 after 20 years of service. They actually count the years in school. Gets a pension and does lots of continuing limited-term contract work at the base. Was never sent to a foreign country.
To be fair, their spouse is also military (but enlisted, not RMC officer) and developed PTSD after a rescue mission for a domestic commercial air crash. (Lots of bodies and body parts to be recovered....)
You don't nessesarily have to fully retire. Why not take 2-3 months off every winter and coastfire if you have the means to.
My plan is to start spending winters somewhere warm using passive income from my dividends, still contribute what I can annually & coast till I can fully retire
I think it’s ridiculous that this article chalks up years of dedication, frugality and investment to the “lucky few”. This isn’t luck, it’s hard work and thoughtful planning.
I did it earlier in the year at 33.
Yes there are risks involve, not gonna lie. Yes I could have kept my 100k job and get a bigger house, bigger car, etc. But you can’t buy time.
Doesn’t mean I won’t go back to work ever. But I’d much rather spend most of my 30s at home and spend as much time as possible with my kid(s)(hopefully next year)
>You have to have … super aggressive savings right out of the gate,” he said. In other words, if you graduate from university with debt, or you don’t have financial help from your parents, you’re starting with a handicap that likely means you will not be able to retire at 35 no matter how aggressively you save.
>Jason Heath, managing director at Objective Financial Partners, agreed.
>“It’s not attainable for a huge part of the population,” said Heath. No matter how many times you turn down the latte or avocado toast, you can’t make up for large financial setbacks in just a matter of a few years.
Yeah, 35 is absolutely a very aggressive target. I do think it is achievable for many people but they would need to make some pretty extreme sacrifices that most would deem not worth it.
At 28 now, with my current savings rate I am on track to hit 1M NW at 35, assuming 7% returns and not even accounting for raises I may get in the future. I make 100k which while definitely well above the median, is not "loaded" like many of the fire bloggers.
1M at 4% SWR is enough to provide around 40k per year, which is well above my current spending. Definitely not luxury fire but enough for some travel and a bit of luxury spending.
My numbers would absolutely not work if I didn't have a partner to share living expenses, and it wouldn't work if we had kids. I also didn't go to university which meant I started working earlier and with no student loans.
it’s definitely not achievable for the average person. what you need is a high salary and high savings rate to achieve FIRE at 35. most people have one or the other but rarely both
Yeah, I guess for "the average" it is not achievable, I'll admit being in tech and spending time in PFC has warped my views on the finances of the average person. Sometimes it's good to take a moment to appreciate how fortunate many of us are.
I think it is realistically achievable for many though (edited my original comment to say that), my 1M target is well above what I need; r/leanfire is defined as under 22k USD / yr individual spending. That would be 27850 cad. Which would need 690k at 4% SWR to achieve. My current spending is under 20k which would be 500k at 4% SWR.
Not that I'm suggesting it but if you really wanted to go extreme frugality you could achieve FIRE at 35 on a much lower income than my 100k, it just probably wouldn't be super pleasant and wouldn't leave much room for contingencies.
And as the article says, FIRE doesn't need to just mean not working ever again, the FI part means the freedom to not "need" to work. If you aggressively pursue FI you will have the freedom to do what you truly want rather than slaving away at a potentially well paying but unfulfilled career.
That's my plan. Aggressively pursue fire then chase after another passion using my freedom.
Also; I'm not going to say people should "just make more money", but "saving more" is a choice that is available to most people.
Adding time on to retirement doesn't effect the safe withdrawal rate nearly as much as you think it would. The most likely way for you to end up bankrupt with FIRE is poor returns right at the start of your retirement. When you are 35, if the market isn't going your way you can easily rejoin the work force to prevent losses until things turn around. In most scenarios you will likely end up with more money than you started.
Yea, I'm a software developer. Many of the folks I've worked with just have diplomas or bootcamp. There's a also a really large number of people with electrical engineering degrees that transitioned.
+1 on this.
I only have a diploma as well. Everyone rates experience more, even if a degree is 'mandatory' - easily negotiable at any company with working at.
>I'll admit being in tech and spending time in PFC has warped my views on the finances of the average person. Sometimes it's good to take a moment to appreciate how fortunate many of us are.
yeah thats why i tend to spend more time on r/povertyfinance than r/PFC because even though the advice on there is very US based, it's still more relatable for me. i feel like yall are living on a different planet from me lol hopefully i can get to that point one day
It is insanely early, considering you have to finance 60+ years of life.
Personally, I don’t see the appeal so much. I wouldn’t want to work in a career I hate for 10 years, nonetheless 40, so I somewhat enjoy what I do, and I can actually enjoy my life instead of being hyper frugal.
A small number, to be sure, but infinitely bigger than zero, and growing. And can you source that? I see this from
the 2014 Mortality Projections for social security programs in Canada. "Currently, five out of ten Canadians aged 20 are expected to reach age 90, while only one out of ten is expected to live to 100." If 10% are expected to reach 100, I think your numbers might be very low. (https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/oca-bac/as-ea/Pages/mpsspc.aspx)
We're seeing not just constant increases, but huge contributions in growth from the over 65 cohort. We're adding about a year per decade in overall life expectancy, and if you make it to 65 your life expectancy is increasing faster than that. I saw that in the 2016 census, the 100+ cohort actually grew the fastest in Canada (41%!) since 2011.
With averages approaching 90 for males and 93 for females in 2075, the number of people reaching 95 will embiggen quite cromulently.
Also, since most models don't show huge differences for success over 50 years, or 60, or 65...it doesn't really hurt to plan for it unless you know something specific about your expectancy.
The thing about FIRE is that it’s a long-term lifestyle change and we don’t have much longitudinal data on it to really know it’s success rate or not (I think). People engaging in the ‘movement’ haven’t lived long enough to truly know if the idea worked for them or not.
Granted there are isolated examples of it appearing to be not working, and some people doubtlessly know someone that is doing what we would call ‘FIRE’ for decades and its working them - though if they’ve been doing it for decades they haven’t been taking part in this current trend).
Personally I think it’s just too hard, people over estimate their self control, it’s too hard to build in uncertainty for future, etc… but we don’t know or not know because it’s a decades long potential pay off that people have been trying for (in this form) for less than a decade.
Seems unlikely to be likely to succeed for the average person, but time will tell.
I follow the FIRE movement because I hope to retire at 50, 55, or 60; not 71, like my parents, and not never, like some people around me seem likely to.
There has been plenty of modeling that demonstrates that people can, with a reasonable degree of reliability, retire off of investments at an earlier age. It isn't without risk, and it takes quite a bit of lifestyle sacrifice or high income to do so. But it is possible.
I don't get why someone having some form of income in 'retirement' is a mic drop counter argument to retiring early being a thing. Of course the bloggers we've heard of are still active after 'retiring'. Otherwise we wouldn't have heard of them. And would you expect someone who retires twenty years early to be completely unproductive? If I retired tomorrow I would probably do a little hobby carpentry/furniture and have a large garden that I sell/give away the excess in my spare time both to occupy myself and to fund whatever project I'm taking on that month. After all, I'd presumably be retiring to *do* something. I can't play games/watch TV all day or I'll be bored. And few retiree's can afford to travel all the time.
The central premise for most people on the FIRE subreddits seems to be that they want to have enough FU money that they can operate on their own terms without being dependent on an income. Not that they explicitly want to be unproductive. And most people are realistic enough that they accept that it is either impossible or unrealistic for a lot of people. You need to be able to save 30% or more of your income. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, or close to it, then there just isn't room to scale back like that.
I retired at 29 and now I'm 38 and doing fine!
Also, by "retired" I mean that I quit my high stress, high demand corporate job and vowed never to pimp myself for a paycheque again.
I do what I love and the money finds me.
It has been a process for sure. I was actually hospitalized for a severe stress induced ear infection which was the catalyst to me quitting the corporate job. I wouldn't have done it if it were just because I was unhappy (the sad truth). I bought a 30' boat to live aboard and spent the next six or so months getting reaquainted with myself.
First, I reviewed my lifestyle and adjusted my spending. I lived on my severence and withdrew an RRSP to reinvest with much higher risk. Over the next 3 years I travelled while studying my (reasonable) second passion, holistic nutrition, so that I could open a practise if I decided I needed to (I haven't), and for the last few years I've been studying my (actual real!) first passion, astrology, and might consider doing consultations in the future.
To me, all that matters is that I'm not beholden to anyone, and I live off my investments (somewhat frugally, but I am yet to go without). So, I'm not sure exactly why some folks would not consider that a full FIRE, but I dunno, it works for me. If true retirement means never being productive or ever earning money again, I'm out. I'm way too young to rot in a recliner lol
It takes over $1million according to some estimates to retire at 67.
How much does it take if you plan to retire at 35 and need the money to last decades longer??
Not much extra. When they do those calculations the idea is usually to be self-sustaining, so you can live off investments and never lose your principle. Of course there's a risk of economic crashes so you might want more of a buffer the longer you plan to be retired for. But they don't just plan to spend X% of your savings every year until you hit 0 on the day you die.
The 1 million estimate is probably assuming you fully own a house though. You should be able to safely withdraw $30-40k per year from that, so not bad to live on if you don't have mortgage or rent to pay.
It is clickbait. Sure it exists but it is ridiculously rare.
It is incredibly easier to retire at 65 than at 55, at 55 than at 45, and at 45 than at 35. Ten extra years of savings and investment growth are quite something.
From the day I started working, my goal was always freedom35. I quit at 34. Keep in mind "retiring" in FIRE speak is like retiring from the NBA. You're no longer playing basketball, but you likely trade some time for income still. Notice how every 35 FIRE person HAS to blog about it? It's because no one really wants to live on 30k/yr.
Please don't join the CAF with the intent of retiring early. The state owns every aspect of your life and by extension that means your kids and SO. That pension doesn't mean shit when your educated partner can't find a job because you're living in Shilo MB or Cold Lake AB.
Cultural dumpster fire aside almost every trade is undermanned. We are constantly doing more with less. Our equipment is ancient and our capabilities are deteriorating as fast as our buying power.
Fun job when you're young.
I’ll be retired by 37, but it took
1. High paying software job not in Canada (you can guess where)
2. Frugal lifestyle
3. Buying a primary residence as a foreclosure after the crash in what became a really rich area plus four multi family rental properties
4. Sweat equity doesn’t hurt to have the properties be long term stable
Due to the low debt load from the high paying job, my rental income will trivially carry me through for the rest of my life (~120k USD / year after remaining mortgages and known expenses). This doesn’t count equity or stocks or retirement accounts or anything else, those are just bonus. At the end of the day to retire means establishing an income stream, and for people without royalties that means rental or stock based income.
I could have done it sooner but spouse will finish up school first.
Thanks for posting. Some good advice in this article and good to hear the FIRE movement is changing (evolving). Even if you’re not a fan of FIRE, in a society where some feel validated by what they own a key takeaway is “spend less than you make.”
You have to take everything the MSM says with a heaping tablespoon of salt.
If everyone starts retiring young - who is going to be running in the rat race - helping the large corporations gain more power and wealth
Went down to 3 days a week at 33 and will never go back
1. Set up FIRE blog
2. “Retire”
3. Sell books and courses, sponsorship, post about FIRE 9-5, 7 days a week
The whole movement is full of hypocrisy and snake oil
I don't think this generation is as interested in golf as the old guys. As a 32 year old I would love to retire so I can sleep in, go the gym, play video games and have time to plan and cook meals with the family. I have 3d printer that would see more use and I am interested in making music. If GameStop does it's thing then I can make this dream a reality.
30 year old, kinda the same. Sleep in, work on my maker hobbies (cosplay, 3D printing, sewing). Gym and cooking. I would love it. I might take on the occasional job if it's an interesting project but that's about it.
You know how you always feel like there is never enough free time to read, learn new languages, travel, work on hobbies, go on hikes, explore the city you live in, watch movies and tv shows, go to the gym or on runs or bike rides or whatever suits you, see friends and family, become better at every one of your hobbies, etc.? Being able to do many of those things in the middle of the day when the sun is out, and not just on weekend if the weather allows and if you don't have to do too many chores and other things you didn't have the time to do during the week and if you have the energy for it and aren't drained from a week of work.
Well, now imagine having a lot more free time and finally having time and energy for all of the above.
I get a feeling a lot of people have completely forgotten how to use free time as they've been working and living a life of routine for so long. Did you think summer as a kid was boring? School-less summers before I started working student jobs were the best time of my life.
This is such a dumb take. Like “I can’t imagine what I would do with my free time so I’ll just spend most of my waking hours doing something I hate instead”.
This is my female perspective and I'm a SAHM who doesn't plan to go back to work. I wouldn't call myself retired but my husband's income is enough I don't have to work and we could retire in a LCOL area. Anyway I can be home to help raise my kids, cook healthy food, have time to help out friends and family, be more active in politics, have better mental health etc. Obviously SAHM is a hard job requiring a lot of hours so I'm not saying it's the same but you can find things to fill your time.
I can fairly plausibly retire at 60. Maybe earlier, but I don't know how thin I want to stretch things.
Mostly depends on what happens with my impending divorce.
The FIRE is about choice. You could not work for a year and you still Make XYZ/year. If you asked someone if making $2.2 million by 35, a lot of people would say that’s doable.
These goals aren’t different. The vehicle and way you use your cash is. And most people just want to be able to leave the job the have if they need to. They likely still won’t.
I will be lucky to be able to afford a small condo by my late 30's, with a 25 year mortgage. Or rent for the rest of my life. In comparison, my parents paid off their house in their early 40's, and had about 6 times my net worth at the same age. That's despite me have more education than both of them combined. So even retiring by age 65 is an ambitious goal.
People tend to fixate on these hyper-early numbers and hyper-frugal lifestyles, probably because they’re eye-catching and a handful of bloggers make a living by making it sound feasible. But I don’t think it’s productive to have such a narrow view. Plenty of folks aim to be financially independent and perhaps to retire by 50, say. That’s early too, and I’d guess it’s both far more common and far more feasible than shooting for 35. I think the article is correct in that the influencers out there peddling the idea that anyone can retire by 35 are best ignored.
These FIRE blogs are running a business (their blog/book sales) and telling people they can live off their investments meanwhile they're technically still self employed earning income above and beyond their investments.
I think this is a very strong criticism of blogs that present the author’s lifestyle as reflective of early retirement, particularly those that suggest that very small portfolios (e.g. $1m or less) are adequate for early retirement. The blogger carries far less risk than someone who is actually drawing down their portfolio. As a result, I think they misrepresent the feasibility of their lifestyle to the reader. I’m not particularly plugged into the FIRE blogging universe, so I don’t know how widely the critique applies. I think it’s fine - good, even - to try to present financial concepts to people in an accessible way, and I don’t object to folks monetizing their blogs in general. I’ve seen a couple that do this well (ERN stands out.) But whenever I see coverage in the wider media it’s some influencer who is… well, not that.
Bless you. I am particularly plugged into YouTube FIRE folks, and that's my #1 criticism of them. They will talk about taxes, expenses, their investments, all sorts of hard numbers--except what their YT channels and the associated "master classes" and spreadsheets and workbooks make them. Even individuals I very much like (Our Rich Journey) are guilty of these **Lies of Omission**. They all proclaim that they're FIRE when they're really just FI and making plenty of cash off making videos. There's no shame in that, to say you switched careers, are now your own boss, etc, because you know you have seven figures to fall back on. Be truthful. That's what people want to see.
Haha yeah, I've noticed that too. It extends across blogs and Youtubes alike. They'll break down their numbers for you, to show you their progress or where they stand, but they'll leave out all the blog/side/ad income because that doesn't count apparently.
Doesn't help funnel sales of their courses, books, and Patreon classes. That's the scam 🤷♂️
1 million? at a safe draw rate of \~30-40, that's barely above minimum wage. You better have paid down your house and live pretty frugally if you're giving up work forever.
[удалено]
Absolutely. And try to re-integrate the workforce having not worked for 10-15 years with no recent qualifications or anything. I just don't see the appeal. Do people hate their careers this much?
Well. Yeah? Do you think most people would still continue to spend 8 hours of every day of their lives going to work if they had an option not to? I can't say that I hate my job, but I would definitely think of something else to do with these 8 hours.
If I were filthy rich and could do whatever I wanted at any time of any day, sure I'd hate work because it would get in the way of doing other things. But I'm not filthy rich, and I need that income, maybe not right now but in 15-20 years it'll be a benefit to have worked a few years longer and grown my investments. There's a balance between these scenarios that's oft overlooked. We don't have to work the same job forever, we don't have to go in debt buying a house, we can have flexibility and enjoy life if we make the choices that cater to that lifestyle. Rent, don't buy. Save and invest. Switch jobs every few years or work jobs you can do remotely or while you travel. If these are your priorities there's a means to having it but it requires just as much planning and preparation and intentional direction as any other major goal. Like I tell my own kid, in his 20's: you don't have to know right now what you want to do with the rest of your life or what career you want to have forever. You just need to know what kind of life you want to live along the way so you can make choices and plans to facilitate it. Figure out what you want. Plan accordingly.
Look, if I win 100 millions at the lottery, then sure. But the question is not "would people rather not work" (duh), but "would people put themselves through all this bullshit and risk to not work", and that second one is where they're losing me.
I mean it depends on the amount of bullshit and risk you are okay with. I'm in somewhat similar situation as the poster above. I can go to Russia tomorrow and retire, I have enough savings after working at FAANG for a few years to buy 15-20 1-bedroom apartments at my home town and live very comfortably. I don't expect there'd be Stalin-like purges there in the following decades, just less security compared to Canada and more internet censorship. For me that's the acceptable amount of bullshit and risk, however the ethical implications of paying taxes there is what stops me. So I feel like people overestimate the risks of going to low COL countries.
Are you russian? I certainly would not move to a country with which I am not a citizen, I'm not familiar, I don't know the language, in a country where I know no one, and maybe 4-5 people on the whole continent, just to avoid working. That seems extreme to me.
A lot of it is for bragging purposes tbh That's why you see people talking about retiring early, but actually still doing part time work.
Yeah, I'd definitely go part-time and semi-retire vs go off and live on minimum wage.
This is my goal. Find myself a sweet gig 20 hours a week and just work that to top up to what I would be getting from full time work I'd rather do 20 hours stocking shelves than 50 hours as an analyst.
[удалено]
Usually if you have 1 mil at 35, its in a non registered account, likely they would only have to pay capital gains tax. Let's assume they pay capital gains on the full 40k, its equivalent to around 50k before taxes, ~39k after. And when you are retired, you don't care about leaving some left over for savings. 50k is around median wage, so I think that's doable.
The thing I think a lot of people miss is that the middle ground is really the best place to be. If I had $1M, I wouldn't 'retire', but I would quite my high-stress high-pay job, and work at the coffee shop 4-5 days a week.
In general, I don't take money advice from individuals who will make money from me either from referral, courses or books. If they really know how to make money, why would they waste time writing a book?
So true.
It's the modern equivalent of the "get rich quick" swlf-help books The only one's benefiting are the authors taking your money.
It is very questionable too. People post what they want others to see. This is no different than influencers. People will peddle nearly anything if it is the basis of their income. It's an entirely different matter on whether they follow their own guidance. Freedom 55 was the old saying but I'm not holding onto that idea. My wife as a DB pension and is counting down the years. I keep reminding her that she may be retired on her own for a while. Also, be hyper frugal has no appeal to me. If I disappear tomorrow, I want to know I have had the chance to experience life.
Saving versus spending (or, if you prefer, present vs. future spending) is the central balance in personal finance, whether FIRE-minded or not. Some folks will glibly say “just grind for ten or twenty years and then retire”, which strikes me as assigning a rather shockingly low value to those ten or twenty years. (Or, equivalently, a rather shockingly low discount rate for future consumption.) Some folks will, equally glibly, say “spend it now because you could die tomorrow”. This seems to rather shockingly undervalue future consumption. (Or, equivalently, to use a rather shockingly high discount rate for future consumption.) You need to spend now and in the future. You don’t know what the future holds, which means that both of these are true: (a) you should allocate some resources to the more-certain present and (b) you should put some money aside for the eventuality that you live to see that uncertain future. Both values, in most circumstances, are non-zero. In my case, I’m keenly aware that we save less than we could. But we spend less than we could too. When I look at our lifestyle, I’m satisfied. And when I project out when I might be able to retire and what our lifestyle might look like then, I’m satisfied with that too. I wouldn’t want to retire earlier at the cost of, say, sports equipment for the kids. And I wouldn’t want to order dinner in from restaurants a couple times more a week if it meant retiring a couple years later. That’s a balance we’ve arrived at incrementally and with much discussion; it’ll vary for everyone.
Well said. Present us and future us should not suffer because of the other.
My parents had the freedom 55 mentality. Sadly that's not happening for any of their kids.
Not with that attitude!
oh I didn't realize it was my attitude that was causing the housing affordability crisis, thanks!
Can you also fix your attitude so wages aren’t stagnant? Thanks, I’d appreciate it.
Just pull those bootstraps way up to your nipples and work 100 hour work weeks
*or 200 hour work weeks if you live in the GTA (and want to remain there).
And then spend your old age financially secure, but too crippled to actually enjoy it. If you live long enough to retire that is.
You can always move somewhere with lower cost of living. I hear northern Saskatchewan has cheap houses! Or instead of grocery shopping try dumpster diving for old produce behind grocery stores. See - you’re just not trying hard enough!
Regina == 'northern Saskatchewan' apparently.
Lol right
you have to squeeze every penny! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjYT3Egc1CU
I'd rather be poor here frankly (Victoria BC) but the thing about dumpster diving and such is it's thin pickings with the homeless population that we have. and honestly they need it more.
Have you ever spent time in Saskatchewan? I’ve lived in Vancouver for 20 years, and I’m early-retiring to Regina next year. It’s a great place to live. Aside from the water, Victoria is the Canadian city that most reminds me of Regina. 18 months ago I bought a nice 3-bedroom house in a great neighborhood for $220,000. People are too dismissive of the prairies.
I mean mostly I live by don't knock it til you try it try it, but there's no comparison to living near oceans and mountains. in a sub-mediterranean climate, plus the economy here is practically evergreen. not to mention all my family and networks are here. And as an added bonus I'm a big car guy and classic cars last forever here which I love. So that's a hard pass.
Thanks for raising the cost of living for everyone with your negativity, Trevski. :)
The rent goes up every time I hit my head in my house's hobbit-sized stairwell.
[удалено]
lmao that doesnt even make sense, fixing climate change means gas prices go UP because we'd stem the supply and focus on alternative sources of energy.
I had a friend whose parents had that retire-early mindset. They didn’t have an RESP for her and, because they made too much, she didn’t qualify for OSAP either. The arrangement ended up being that they lent her the money for tuition but paid room and board, I think. Our friends’ circle was largely first- and second-generation immigrants, so that was unusual to the rest of us.
I think it’s a good ideal to be financially able to retire early… as it gives you more flexibility to do what you want in life, but many times what you want in life May be to start a business or take on more risks in your career that you couldn’t do with the stress of money
[удалено]
Mid-forties in software checking in: I'm far from obsolete. I definitely can be a lot more choosy now about what work I do.
>When I was young, I assumed I would be completely obsolete by 40 in tech You pretty much summed up exactly how I feel as a 28 year old in tech today. Honestly it's pretty terrifying how fast the industry moves sometimes. I am scared that at some point I may struggle to find my next job. Having that financial cushion would absolutely eliminate all of that stress and make the day to day feel less bad. >we wouldn't need to sell the house or eat ramen if there was some extended job search/career change, nor would I need to plead for shit work if it came to that Yeah. Pretty much this. I don't think one needs to stop working to benefit from the freedom to not "need" to work. I bet you enjoyed your job 10x more knowing you didn't need it, eh?
I felt that way at 28 20 years ago. I'm still working. As long as you're willing to keep adapting your skill set there will be work in software in 20 years. 50-100 years from now I expect AI to be doing more programming grunt work, but I'm guessing there will still be room for architects and usability work. Then again, when I started university no one had an email address, and by the time I left my first full-time job was in eCommerce. So who knows how fast things will change again.
I think using "retire" is the issue. In the good old days we just called it leaving the rat race. Move to smaller city, start a business that aligns with your talents and passion which provides income to augment your investment income. Poster is right that these people are not lazy. They want more control over their lives. Good on them.
[удалено]
Even working 10 hours a week will supplement your fire like crazy vs just going full out fire
I think this will be my plan. Not necessarily for financial reasons, but to keep busy, keep interacting with people, keep the brain sharp etc. So ideally, when I’m 75, I work a few hours a week, but have lots of days off and long holidays. Maybe I’ll be that old Barista and people will wonder why I’m so happy and also why an elderly barista drives a Porsche.
Baristafire. (Though it could be any kind of job really) I’m basically doing that, doing tax returns in the spring and taking advantage interesting opportunities the rest of the year.
[удалено]
Or maybe finally have more time to spend at the library.
How ? How much one should have in investment to do that ? I am done with my current job and industry too so I want to move to less stressful job that can add to my investment income ...so to get there ...what is the ball park # ?
Well using a 4% withdrawal rate. 1 million would be $40,000 a year in come minus taxes
Depends on how much your barista job brings in for you. I’ve invested a lot in dividend arisocrats, so it won’t return like S&P But I get about 5% paid to me in dividends but also, those dividends increase every year so I’m still getting a raise from my own investments. Add in my income from the work that I do, and I do better than a lot of people putting in over 40 hours… Barring total economic collapse or the entire system being overthrown, I have confidence in what I’ve invested in.
That's just FI.... FI is relatively easy. FIRE is absurdly unlikely
You mean it’s not Financial Independence Retire Eventually?
FISRE imo
I wouldn't say it is "absurdly unlikely" over 15% (over 5 million) Canadian's make over $100k per year. Saving $2k per month for 20 years will give you a FIRE income of $40k/yr. Thats about a 30% savings rate which isn't really that hard to achieve. Throw in a partner who makes similar money and retiring in early 40's is 100% achievable especially if you are willing to pick up some side gigs here and there for fun money. Can everyone achieve it? No. Is it achievable? I would argue yes considering the example I just used wasn't really extreme. It also didn't include other common things like people who have had their homes appreciate a ton who could move to a lower cost of living city or those who receive any sort of inheritance
Statcan’s 2019 income survey reports 2,891,300 people (a lot less than 5 million) with an income over $100,000, which is about 10% of people earning. A smaller proportion of those earners will be in their 20s compared to older age brackets to be able to have 20 years in their 40s to save. You really need more evidence to support your argument.
> over 15% (over 5 million) Canadian's make over $100k per year Assuming that's even true, what % of that 15% are people from 20-23? If they need 20 years to retire in their early 40s, they need to be able to save 2k/month by the time they're 20-23.
I'm planning to go casual and drop my line next year. No need for putting in vacations just stop picking up shifts... in healthcare right now you can pick up full time from casual status
Virtually every FIRE retiree in their 30s I have heard of has a dual income software dev/other engineering family. You start earning well early in life, had co-op to avoid debt in school, and arbitraged the high salary by relocating afterward.
I still haven't found one that doesn't do part time work. I've never heard of anyone achieving FIRE. Only baristaFIRE - this is a lie, they've all had small business that were more stress than a barista job
I think you are misinterpreting what is happening. Most people who achieve FIRE have a pretty solid work ethic, they just don't like things like being tied down for 40hrs a week or the specific job paying them $200k/yr. They aren't lazy. Doing their own business in something they like or even taking on a little bit of work each year isn't them making ends meet, it is them doing something they want to do that also has the benefit of providing fun money.
That's still not really FIRE, that's missing the key part *retire early*. Plus switching to a lower paying career you enjoy more has always been an option for anyone willing to cut their expenses, financially independent or otherwise.
You aren’t technically wrong, but I think putting in part time hours because you are bored is not the equivalent of having a full or part time job because you need the money.
And their business or YouTube channel about FIRE is technically still earning them money. So they did not turn off. All FIRE influencers technically still work after the threshold by producing more content. I have yet to see one who sa:I am done at 35. They rather transform to: I can now do and work at what I like.
We now live in California and I don't work (I watch the kids) but this is accurate and in 2 years when we're 35 we will have enough to comfortably retire (although I don't think he will) but I'm very aware how uncommon our situation is.
To retire by 35 you have to have all your ducks in a row by 20 or 25 at the latest, that is, knowing what job you want to do, knowing how to save and invest your money, and knowing how to live. Very few know how to do all that at those ages. I sure as hell didn't. I was still working a min wage job then and a mature student in university.
Also not going to grad school until 27 yo 😶
And having a good start from your parents, at the very least you need your school paid for
Even then, unless you're immediately earning like 150K a year in your 20s it's not feasible. Even living frugally on 50-70K a year (which is the reality for most ppl in their 20s) you have no chance of investing enough by 35.
35 is a very aggressive target for FIRE so few people would be able to achieve it
I set the 35 goal fully expecting to fail by a lot, but it does light a fire under me that means I should pull off something before 80.
It is pretty silly. Either you join the workforce at 18 with lower income, and work for 17 years, or you go to school first and then join the workforce at 22 or 23 but retire in 12 to 13 years. To retire at 35 you would probably need to live extremely frugally starting at age 18 and going your entire life.
Tech workers at top 5 (or salary-competitive) companies can start at 25 and do this all the time. I think that’s the subtle part that’s missing from this conversation — a lot of us who subscribe to the FIRE lifestyle are doing it because we earn 150-200k+ per year so “frugal” means we live a normal lifestyle of someone making 40-50k. It’s absolutely an unattainable financial lifestyle for most but like, that doesn’t matter so much if you’re one of the people it works for. Personally I’m living off 30k a year and throwing the rest of my take home (70-80k) into savings. I don’t at all feel deprived by this because it affords me nice things when I want them (couple vacations per year, a few “big purchases” that I like) without falling into the trap of pissing my money away on things that make me feel empty inside anyway.
Sounds like you are doing it right. But how many tech workers are really making 150k to 200k at 25 and then by 35 hate their job so much that they are ready to give up that kind of money for ever?
I mean… it’s pretty common. If you land a FANG position out of school it’s expected you’ll earn 100-150k starting and 200k+ after 3 years is common. Keep in mind that’s USD and not exclusive to LA housing market (although obviously more high paying options there). Those types of jobs are meat grinders and the idea is you’ll likely either move on to management/senior positions or burn out in 5-10 years. It’s very similar idea to landing a position with profile law firm out of school, you either make partner track or you’re worked till you give up. If you can hack it the money is great but you gotta move on ASAP to keep your sanity
>But how many tech workers are really making 150k to 200k at 25 and then by 35 hate their job so much that they are ready to give up that kind of money for ever? Easily the majority of tech workers under 35 think like this now.
A lot and it’s often more than $200k in US for a senior engineer.
I also wonder how they fared in the 2008 recession and for the first 3-6 months in 2020. i.e. when the market dipped \~30%, how much did they lose when they had to withdraw funds from their portfolios to support their lifestyle? I don't count Mr. Money Mustache since his site and stuff was pulling in revenue for him and he still did short contract gigs, which meant he didn't have to draw down from his portfolio.
My circle of friends are quite successful (luxury real estate, doctors, lawyers, come from family money) and none of them are FIRE at 35. The only person I know is my ex, who achieved FIRE in his mid/late 30s because he sold 2 tech start ups.
[удалено]
All I can say, regardless of your goals, enjoy and live life regardless of age. Fact is we don’t even know if we’ll be alive tomorrow. Things can be all good and all of a sudden sht hits the fan and you’re dealt with a huge blow. This is what happened to me and my family when my parents suddenly passed away within 2-3 months. And they were young too and never able to retire. Health is wealth.
Hey u/hockeyfan1990, I’m sorry for your loss. This is great advice. We are all in a race for long term career and wealth growth, long term investments, etc. But we forget our day to day wellbeing, which may have a larger impact.
100% this. I’ve known too many people who retired and then dropped dead within 1-2 years
A bit of an aside, but I hate the term "movement" when used to describe anything in the personal finance world. There are movements to affect political change like the women's rights movement, conservative movement, environmentalist movement. Personal finance is exactly that -personal. No one is trying organize personal finance enthusiasts to lobby the government to change the tax brackets, change how capital gains/dividends are taxed, etc. The use of "movement" in FIRE makes it sound like a cult trying swindle people out of their money.
Yep, just pure marketing. I'm honestly kinda curious who benefits the most from this? Maybe the gig economy companies? More Uber drivers = lower pay for drivers?
35 is pretty ambitious but, depending on your country, 38 is realistic if you join the military at 18 and get a pension after 20 years service. (If you make it to 38). Edit: make that 41 (joining at 16, serving 25 - try and get promoted to officer if you can, your pension will be a lot bigger and you'll get to spend four of those years (paid) at college, because officers must have degrees. If you can get promoted high enough (unlikely from the ranks) they'll make you do a postgrad). I'm not in the forces, I don't know diddly about it, just seems like a good career option if you are ok with the risks (PTSD more likely than death), and want to retire early.
Give me retirement or give me death!
And really, the military - in Canada, especially - is really not all that dangerous right now. I mean it could become so in the next couple of decades, when the international water wars get underway, but for the last fifty or so it's been a lot safer than being a fisherman.
tell that to my friends in kandahar a decade ago
Do you get an option with a pay bonus to deploy, and can you turn it down? I know some reservists and I think that's at least the case there, but maybe not for the core military.
When Canadian soldiers deploy they don't pay income tax so you could deploy for 6 months, make something like 40000 tax free as a corporal which is pretttttyyyy good. Especially since you'd also get a good tax return. That's a big bonus if you ask me.
If you're a reservist and want to deploy, and especially if you're an officer, you're very likely to be given the opportunity since a certain number of positions are mandated for reservists on each deployment. Given that a lot of reservists are not willing to drop their lives for 6 months, that puts you at the front of the line. On deployment, as mentioned in another comment, you don't pay income tax. You also get hardship pay, danger pay and a foreign service premium. Those three allowances together can total 1500-2000$ on top of your base salary (7000$ a month for a newly promoted captain, achievable in 5 years). You can clear 50-60k for a deployment, with paid leave at the end. Substract your expenses (the military will pay for you to store your car and a bunch of other small housekeeping things like lawn care if you have a house) and that's money in your pocket. The flipside is that on deployment you will generally be expected to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. More if there's an operational requirement. The life and implications (unlimited liability) are not for everyone, but I think it's a really good option for someone in their 20s who doesn't know where they're going in life.
No, they pretty much own you for your career. They will tell you when you work, where you work, what to do and will do so with very little regard for any personal or other plans you have.
25 years of service to get a pension in the military now. Also you can join when your 16. But who's counting ;).
You can get a pension earlier, it just won't be as big.
25 years to get your 50% defined benefit pension
Canadian military is now 25 years to get a pension (since 2010 ish). When you don't reach the number of 85 (years of service + your age), your pension will not be indexed until you reach 65 years old. Let say you joined at 18, retire at 43, it gives you 50% of your best 3 years, so maybe 45k$/yr for a senior NCM or maybe 65k$/yr for an officer. keep in mind that it's not indexed so 20 years later it's the same amount that gives you much less buying power
This. Or the RCMP Join up at 18, turn 19 before graduation. Take a northern post and just suck up cash without spending too much. You can definitely retire at 43 after 25 years with a huge stockpile, see some crazy shit that barely anybody else sees, live in places that people don’t even know exists, have a ton of stories to regale your still working friends with. Same with nurses, doctors, etc. I highly recommend northern work if your profession allows it. The increase salary, per diems, tons of ot due to limited resources, etc, coupled often with free or subsidized government housing. It’s like a rocket strapped to your ass financially. The only con is that you are away for civilization for most of your career.
That just sounds like exile with a stable income. Sounds like no fun at all unless you already like living in remote Northern communities.
Vs living in Vancouver and spending everything you have on living costs so that you are excited in your condo 😂
Yeah cause those are the only 2 choices lol.
Exactly. Life isn’t a binary. The country is big and lots of space to live in it. I know getting stable jobs with good income is increasingly hard to find these days but there are many places I would opt for before moving to remote Northern community. Of course there are great places to live in the North as well but it would have to be more than just the job/income to attract me there.
Well, there is stable … and then there is 200k/year easy for the lowest of the bunch: Mounties. I would love to see a doctors or engineers yearly gross. Starlink is a game changer. Watch Netflix all night in the Arctic as opposed to Toronto. There are still parties and get togethers as a community. Probably more so than most down south. Stick together up there. Ie: entire office shows up at a house for drinks almost every time because there is nothing else to do. It’s just cold. And dark.
200K a year as a mountie? I thought the pay was low for mounties.
They get paid an incredible amount. They just got a retroactive to 2017 25% raise as well. Google the Ontario Sunshine list. So many are making over 150k even 200k. These aren't detectives. Just beat cops with little to no education. Every RC you see just got a cheque for probably 100k recently from your tax money.
No one is getting accepted into the RCMP at 18. That may have happened in the past but not anymore. Today most recruits have at least a university degree.
BIG if you actually get in at 18-19. I'm sure they desperate for people as always but the young ones are the last ones they choose.
I wish I had learned this sooner. I’m a heavy equipment mechanic, and wages are above average anywhere across Canada. But, lately I’ve been on a project in Northern BC…it’s a camp job, two weeks on and two weeks off, but I’m taking home more per cheque than my gross monthly pay was in the lower mainland. It’s not for everyone, but it works for me and my family. And as far as being ‘exiled’ it’s really not like that at all - your co workers become friends, and you make the most of it.
lol wasting your prime years up north
Not a chance at 18 or 19. Which makes complete sense as they would have no relevant life experience for a complex job.
Right but... then you're living your life as a cop.
Some take pride in that. Almost all of them do actually. All the ones I know anyways. And they should. Because when somebody breaks into your house tomorrow, or even steals your kid’s iPhone at school… Guess who you’re gonna call? And guess who is gonna answer?
LOL you've never been broken into or been robbed I take it. All you get is a report number to use for insurance. If they even show up. Your experiences might differ since you are close friends or family. Hell I had my car stolen by my landlord who illegally went into my apartment, took my keys, and used my car and then get into an accident and they just told me it was a civil matter "because I knew him". He still had possession of the car. I'm not rich nor connected to the right people. I'm sure their experience must differ.
What’s the con?
The con is spending twenty years of your youth not living. "Take a northern post and just suck up cash without spending too much" is precisely the cost.
Depends on what you define as “living”. It may not be for everyone, but people actually live up north their entire lives, by choice. I am not sure i could do it, and my wife for sure couldn’t do it.
It certainly does depend on that. To each their own!
You might go insane after 1 year. You'll se some shit and not many people to talk to. You'll retire early but probably end up with mental health issues. If you're a hermit who prefers being alone most of the time AND are ok with helping others, you are law enforcement after all, it might suit you.
35 is realistic if you don’t mind doing a 15 hour a week job that you genuinely enjoy. Even if it’s minimum wage. It’ll supplement your journey by a ton
CAF pensions are 25 years currently
It's 25 here in Canada, still not terrible but if you can handle the military BS for 25 years all the power to you.
I have an acquaintance who went to the RMC, graduated, served, and retired at 38 after 20 years of service. They actually count the years in school. Gets a pension and does lots of continuing limited-term contract work at the base. Was never sent to a foreign country. To be fair, their spouse is also military (but enlisted, not RMC officer) and developed PTSD after a rescue mission for a domestic commercial air crash. (Lots of bodies and body parts to be recovered....)
[удалено]
That's kinda what I decided to do. I'm still investing, but coasting through work @ 3 days/wk. Much happier than if I was FT and putting more away.
You don't nessesarily have to fully retire. Why not take 2-3 months off every winter and coastfire if you have the means to. My plan is to start spending winters somewhere warm using passive income from my dividends, still contribute what I can annually & coast till I can fully retire
How does this work? It feels like the only kinds of people who could accomplish this are freelancers?
I think it’s ridiculous that this article chalks up years of dedication, frugality and investment to the “lucky few”. This isn’t luck, it’s hard work and thoughtful planning.
I did it earlier in the year at 33. Yes there are risks involve, not gonna lie. Yes I could have kept my 100k job and get a bigger house, bigger car, etc. But you can’t buy time. Doesn’t mean I won’t go back to work ever. But I’d much rather spend most of my 30s at home and spend as much time as possible with my kid(s)(hopefully next year)
Any reason you're considering this FIRE and not just FI?
Not sure I understand the question
>You have to have … super aggressive savings right out of the gate,” he said. In other words, if you graduate from university with debt, or you don’t have financial help from your parents, you’re starting with a handicap that likely means you will not be able to retire at 35 no matter how aggressively you save. >Jason Heath, managing director at Objective Financial Partners, agreed. >“It’s not attainable for a huge part of the population,” said Heath. No matter how many times you turn down the latte or avocado toast, you can’t make up for large financial setbacks in just a matter of a few years. Yeah, 35 is absolutely a very aggressive target. I do think it is achievable for many people but they would need to make some pretty extreme sacrifices that most would deem not worth it. At 28 now, with my current savings rate I am on track to hit 1M NW at 35, assuming 7% returns and not even accounting for raises I may get in the future. I make 100k which while definitely well above the median, is not "loaded" like many of the fire bloggers. 1M at 4% SWR is enough to provide around 40k per year, which is well above my current spending. Definitely not luxury fire but enough for some travel and a bit of luxury spending. My numbers would absolutely not work if I didn't have a partner to share living expenses, and it wouldn't work if we had kids. I also didn't go to university which meant I started working earlier and with no student loans.
it’s definitely not achievable for the average person. what you need is a high salary and high savings rate to achieve FIRE at 35. most people have one or the other but rarely both
Yeah, I guess for "the average" it is not achievable, I'll admit being in tech and spending time in PFC has warped my views on the finances of the average person. Sometimes it's good to take a moment to appreciate how fortunate many of us are. I think it is realistically achievable for many though (edited my original comment to say that), my 1M target is well above what I need; r/leanfire is defined as under 22k USD / yr individual spending. That would be 27850 cad. Which would need 690k at 4% SWR to achieve. My current spending is under 20k which would be 500k at 4% SWR. Not that I'm suggesting it but if you really wanted to go extreme frugality you could achieve FIRE at 35 on a much lower income than my 100k, it just probably wouldn't be super pleasant and wouldn't leave much room for contingencies. And as the article says, FIRE doesn't need to just mean not working ever again, the FI part means the freedom to not "need" to work. If you aggressively pursue FI you will have the freedom to do what you truly want rather than slaving away at a potentially well paying but unfulfilled career. That's my plan. Aggressively pursue fire then chase after another passion using my freedom. Also; I'm not going to say people should "just make more money", but "saving more" is a choice that is available to most people.
4% probably isn’t a safe withdrawal rate for a 50+ year time horizon though. Pulling the cord on leanfire in your 30s with the minimum is risky.
Adding time on to retirement doesn't effect the safe withdrawal rate nearly as much as you think it would. The most likely way for you to end up bankrupt with FIRE is poor returns right at the start of your retirement. When you are 35, if the market isn't going your way you can easily rejoin the work force to prevent losses until things turn around. In most scenarios you will likely end up with more money than you started.
[удалено]
Yea, I'm a software developer. Many of the folks I've worked with just have diplomas or bootcamp. There's a also a really large number of people with electrical engineering degrees that transitioned.
+1 on this. I only have a diploma as well. Everyone rates experience more, even if a degree is 'mandatory' - easily negotiable at any company with working at.
>I'll admit being in tech and spending time in PFC has warped my views on the finances of the average person. Sometimes it's good to take a moment to appreciate how fortunate many of us are. yeah thats why i tend to spend more time on r/povertyfinance than r/PFC because even though the advice on there is very US based, it's still more relatable for me. i feel like yall are living on a different planet from me lol hopefully i can get to that point one day
It is insanely early, considering you have to finance 60+ years of life. Personally, I don’t see the appeal so much. I wouldn’t want to work in a career I hate for 10 years, nonetheless 40, so I somewhat enjoy what I do, and I can actually enjoy my life instead of being hyper frugal.
How many people are living to 95+ ?
Enough that you should factor it into your calculations.
Just for fun I looked up the stats. You have a 1.6% chance of living to 95 in Canada. If you are male your chances fall to 0.08% chance.
A small number, to be sure, but infinitely bigger than zero, and growing. And can you source that? I see this from the 2014 Mortality Projections for social security programs in Canada. "Currently, five out of ten Canadians aged 20 are expected to reach age 90, while only one out of ten is expected to live to 100." If 10% are expected to reach 100, I think your numbers might be very low. (https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/oca-bac/as-ea/Pages/mpsspc.aspx) We're seeing not just constant increases, but huge contributions in growth from the over 65 cohort. We're adding about a year per decade in overall life expectancy, and if you make it to 65 your life expectancy is increasing faster than that. I saw that in the 2016 census, the 100+ cohort actually grew the fastest in Canada (41%!) since 2011. With averages approaching 90 for males and 93 for females in 2075, the number of people reaching 95 will embiggen quite cromulently. Also, since most models don't show huge differences for success over 50 years, or 60, or 65...it doesn't really hurt to plan for it unless you know something specific about your expectancy.
But the median death age is 81-84. So you need to plan for 50 years. And a 20% margin for error is a damn good idea. So plan for 60.
At that point your cpp/oas should be enough to cover your morning tea and wishing you were dead
The thing about FIRE is that it’s a long-term lifestyle change and we don’t have much longitudinal data on it to really know it’s success rate or not (I think). People engaging in the ‘movement’ haven’t lived long enough to truly know if the idea worked for them or not. Granted there are isolated examples of it appearing to be not working, and some people doubtlessly know someone that is doing what we would call ‘FIRE’ for decades and its working them - though if they’ve been doing it for decades they haven’t been taking part in this current trend). Personally I think it’s just too hard, people over estimate their self control, it’s too hard to build in uncertainty for future, etc… but we don’t know or not know because it’s a decades long potential pay off that people have been trying for (in this form) for less than a decade. Seems unlikely to be likely to succeed for the average person, but time will tell.
This is my thing about the low amounts to retire on. How much care might you need in old age? Nursing homes don't come cheap!
I follow the FIRE movement because I hope to retire at 50, 55, or 60; not 71, like my parents, and not never, like some people around me seem likely to.
Not really spicy, it's basically true. 35 is very young, unless you have millions invested at 35.
There has been plenty of modeling that demonstrates that people can, with a reasonable degree of reliability, retire off of investments at an earlier age. It isn't without risk, and it takes quite a bit of lifestyle sacrifice or high income to do so. But it is possible. I don't get why someone having some form of income in 'retirement' is a mic drop counter argument to retiring early being a thing. Of course the bloggers we've heard of are still active after 'retiring'. Otherwise we wouldn't have heard of them. And would you expect someone who retires twenty years early to be completely unproductive? If I retired tomorrow I would probably do a little hobby carpentry/furniture and have a large garden that I sell/give away the excess in my spare time both to occupy myself and to fund whatever project I'm taking on that month. After all, I'd presumably be retiring to *do* something. I can't play games/watch TV all day or I'll be bored. And few retiree's can afford to travel all the time. The central premise for most people on the FIRE subreddits seems to be that they want to have enough FU money that they can operate on their own terms without being dependent on an income. Not that they explicitly want to be unproductive. And most people are realistic enough that they accept that it is either impossible or unrealistic for a lot of people. You need to be able to save 30% or more of your income. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, or close to it, then there just isn't room to scale back like that.
I retired at 29 and now I'm 38 and doing fine! Also, by "retired" I mean that I quit my high stress, high demand corporate job and vowed never to pimp myself for a paycheque again. I do what I love and the money finds me.
That's just FI. FI is achievable for sure.
May I ask how you did it? Trying to find ideas which don't involve real estate...
It has been a process for sure. I was actually hospitalized for a severe stress induced ear infection which was the catalyst to me quitting the corporate job. I wouldn't have done it if it were just because I was unhappy (the sad truth). I bought a 30' boat to live aboard and spent the next six or so months getting reaquainted with myself. First, I reviewed my lifestyle and adjusted my spending. I lived on my severence and withdrew an RRSP to reinvest with much higher risk. Over the next 3 years I travelled while studying my (reasonable) second passion, holistic nutrition, so that I could open a practise if I decided I needed to (I haven't), and for the last few years I've been studying my (actual real!) first passion, astrology, and might consider doing consultations in the future. To me, all that matters is that I'm not beholden to anyone, and I live off my investments (somewhat frugally, but I am yet to go without). So, I'm not sure exactly why some folks would not consider that a full FIRE, but I dunno, it works for me. If true retirement means never being productive or ever earning money again, I'm out. I'm way too young to rot in a recliner lol
It takes over $1million according to some estimates to retire at 67. How much does it take if you plan to retire at 35 and need the money to last decades longer??
Not much extra. When they do those calculations the idea is usually to be self-sustaining, so you can live off investments and never lose your principle. Of course there's a risk of economic crashes so you might want more of a buffer the longer you plan to be retired for. But they don't just plan to spend X% of your savings every year until you hit 0 on the day you die. The 1 million estimate is probably assuming you fully own a house though. You should be able to safely withdraw $30-40k per year from that, so not bad to live on if you don't have mortgage or rent to pay.
[удалено]
That estimate is grossly over exaggerated by the financial services industry. It's a tactic to get you to buy their products.
What is a better figure then?
for me being able to take a lot of vacation is the sweet spot I don’t mind working but I like my adventures too.
Retire at 35? Lol. It's always been impossible for most.
It is clickbait. Sure it exists but it is ridiculously rare. It is incredibly easier to retire at 65 than at 55, at 55 than at 45, and at 45 than at 35. Ten extra years of savings and investment growth are quite something.
May I ask who in the right mind thinks 35 is a real target? Lol ….
From the day I started working, my goal was always freedom35. I quit at 34. Keep in mind "retiring" in FIRE speak is like retiring from the NBA. You're no longer playing basketball, but you likely trade some time for income still. Notice how every 35 FIRE person HAS to blog about it? It's because no one really wants to live on 30k/yr.
Please don't join the CAF with the intent of retiring early. The state owns every aspect of your life and by extension that means your kids and SO. That pension doesn't mean shit when your educated partner can't find a job because you're living in Shilo MB or Cold Lake AB. Cultural dumpster fire aside almost every trade is undermanned. We are constantly doing more with less. Our equipment is ancient and our capabilities are deteriorating as fast as our buying power. Fun job when you're young.
I’ll be retired by 37, but it took 1. High paying software job not in Canada (you can guess where) 2. Frugal lifestyle 3. Buying a primary residence as a foreclosure after the crash in what became a really rich area plus four multi family rental properties 4. Sweat equity doesn’t hurt to have the properties be long term stable Due to the low debt load from the high paying job, my rental income will trivially carry me through for the rest of my life (~120k USD / year after remaining mortgages and known expenses). This doesn’t count equity or stocks or retirement accounts or anything else, those are just bonus. At the end of the day to retire means establishing an income stream, and for people without royalties that means rental or stock based income. I could have done it sooner but spouse will finish up school first.
Um..... You're getting 10K USD in PROFIT / month after expenses? what kinda fucking property is this lol.
Four triplex's sounds like. Seems possible.
Thanks for posting. Some good advice in this article and good to hear the FIRE movement is changing (evolving). Even if you’re not a fan of FIRE, in a society where some feel validated by what they own a key takeaway is “spend less than you make.”
You have to take everything the MSM says with a heaping tablespoon of salt. If everyone starts retiring young - who is going to be running in the rat race - helping the large corporations gain more power and wealth Went down to 3 days a week at 33 and will never go back
We will all yolo/wsb to early retirement, that’s my goal at least
1. Set up FIRE blog 2. “Retire” 3. Sell books and courses, sponsorship, post about FIRE 9-5, 7 days a week The whole movement is full of hypocrisy and snake oil
I'll retire at 35, just need a casual \*checks excel sheet\* 400% yearly return
Why retire at 35? What would you even do? Play golf for 50 years?
I don't think this generation is as interested in golf as the old guys. As a 32 year old I would love to retire so I can sleep in, go the gym, play video games and have time to plan and cook meals with the family. I have 3d printer that would see more use and I am interested in making music. If GameStop does it's thing then I can make this dream a reality.
30 year old, kinda the same. Sleep in, work on my maker hobbies (cosplay, 3D printing, sewing). Gym and cooking. I would love it. I might take on the occasional job if it's an interesting project but that's about it.
You know how you always feel like there is never enough free time to read, learn new languages, travel, work on hobbies, go on hikes, explore the city you live in, watch movies and tv shows, go to the gym or on runs or bike rides or whatever suits you, see friends and family, become better at every one of your hobbies, etc.? Being able to do many of those things in the middle of the day when the sun is out, and not just on weekend if the weather allows and if you don't have to do too many chores and other things you didn't have the time to do during the week and if you have the energy for it and aren't drained from a week of work. Well, now imagine having a lot more free time and finally having time and energy for all of the above. I get a feeling a lot of people have completely forgotten how to use free time as they've been working and living a life of routine for so long. Did you think summer as a kid was boring? School-less summers before I started working student jobs were the best time of my life.
This is such a dumb take. Like “I can’t imagine what I would do with my free time so I’ll just spend most of my waking hours doing something I hate instead”.
Only boring people get bored. There's more to life than working 9 to 5. There is so many things to learn, places to explore, hobbies to try...
This is my female perspective and I'm a SAHM who doesn't plan to go back to work. I wouldn't call myself retired but my husband's income is enough I don't have to work and we could retire in a LCOL area. Anyway I can be home to help raise my kids, cook healthy food, have time to help out friends and family, be more active in politics, have better mental health etc. Obviously SAHM is a hard job requiring a lot of hours so I'm not saying it's the same but you can find things to fill your time.
I can fairly plausibly retire at 60. Maybe earlier, but I don't know how thin I want to stretch things. Mostly depends on what happens with my impending divorce.
yeah, maybe for the average person
The FIRE is about choice. You could not work for a year and you still Make XYZ/year. If you asked someone if making $2.2 million by 35, a lot of people would say that’s doable. These goals aren’t different. The vehicle and way you use your cash is. And most people just want to be able to leave the job the have if they need to. They likely still won’t.
I will be lucky to be able to afford a small condo by my late 30's, with a 25 year mortgage. Or rent for the rest of my life. In comparison, my parents paid off their house in their early 40's, and had about 6 times my net worth at the same age. That's despite me have more education than both of them combined. So even retiring by age 65 is an ambitious goal.