4 ms·
Every time I read about people with hyper-strict future modeling schemes like this, I think of Nassim Nicholas Talebs Black Swan theory. These kids would be on
by RikNieu 9y ago
Every time I read about people with hyper-strict future modeling schemes like this, I think of Nassim Nicholas Talebs Black Swan theory.
These kids would be one accident, unexpected disease or economic crash away from being abruptly summoned out of their 'early' retirements. That or they would realise they want to have kids. Or they'll get tired of beans in their 40s.
But by then, they'd have years open on their resumes, or have lost touch with the skills needed to generate the income needed to pay for those unforeseen emergencies.
Or maybe I'm just cynical.
- bloaf 9y agoI tend to agree about the hyper-strict parts (e.g. less than $500k in savings). The thing to think about is whether or not you'd be better off if you kept a job, but had a lower savings rate. How certain are you that you'd be able to keep earning money through a disease or recession on the "job only" track? The other thing is that with $1.3 million in savings, the 4% withdrawal rate puts your annual spending allowance at the median household income in the USA. In other words, just having that amount saved means you're earning more than 50% of the US. There is a gray area between $500k of savings (income near the poverty line for family of 3) and 1.3 million, but I think the risks of the FIRE strategy are a little over-stated.
- derekp7 9y agoI think the ideal situation is to put in the hard work for 10 years, and have enough to give yourself a form of basic income. How many people have great ideas and a desire to start a business (even if it is just a consulting gig) but don't want to walk away from a stable job? To me, this is a very good strategy, that way your skills don't deteriorate, yet you don't "have" to work so it takes less mental toll.