> Having savings wiped out is a thing that actually happens in sufficiently significant economic collapses and FIRE is not proof against it. Can you point me t

> Having savings wiped out is a thing that actually happens in sufficiently significant economic collapses and FIRE is not proof against it. Can you point me to where this happened for a well diversified portfolio? Even the great depression on one index (dow jones) didn't see things drop to 0. There's nothing stopping you running out of money by spending it when things crash, no, but having more makes it less likely. And we can look at historical crashes and see if your savings would have lasted if withdrawn at certain rates. Having more savings makes it more likely you can weather significant economic collapses. That's surely not in dispute. > Empirically, the point at which utility derived from additional income becomes insignificant is vastly beyond the income level most people will ever reach Perhaps it's my fault for being overly precise though I thought the followup clarified the point. It's not about your utility curve going completely flat, but it will drop off significantly at some point. As your utility curve drops off, you're sacrificing less and less now for future gains. > and even moreso what they will reach before any point where retirement would be “early”. I really don't like the idea of having some cutoff for "early" retirement when it comes to planning. Most people need to plan for retirement at some age. It's all a trade, and there's risk obviously, but personally (and the reason to talk of utility curves is that it is personal) what I'm giving up now pales in comparison to what I'm likely to get in the future. In the worst cases I'm in a better position or provided for my family, and the cost to me now in terms of utility is low (though not 0).