3 ms·

> His partner left him for another man and he was diagnosed with a serious medical issue. Both of those events are very common – especially medical issues. Onc

by adwn 5y ago

> His partner left him for another man and he was diagnosed with a serious medical issue. Both of those events are very common – especially medical issues. Once you're getting old, developing a "serious medical issue" is more common than not! Any plan which assumes that you'll neither break up with your partner nor develop medical issues for the rest of your life is a plan destined to fail.

kerkeslager 5y ago
...in which you cherry-pick one sentence from my post, ignoring the sentence before it. That's exactly why I said, "at least not any more unrealistic than any more traditional life plans". Working a job doesn't fix either of these problems. At least in the US, many people who go bankrupt due to medical issues have health insurance, usually provided by their job. These problems are compounded if your plan was to work, but you can't work due to your medical problems. And while medical or disability insurance can theoretically account for these worst-case scenarios, they can be so costly that they may cause financial problems even if no disaster happens. Divorce is also a major cause of bankruptcy, even if you're employed. You're doing exactly what my previous post accused people of doing: gloating about how the author's plan failed, without looking at how plans that fit your worldview don't account for the same life events any better.
- adwn 5y ago
  > That's exactly why I said, "at least not any more unrealistic than any more traditional life plans". And you're still wrong. Retiring early renders your financial situation much more fragile and susceptible to disruptive events. Sure, you can go bankrupt due to divorce or illness even when employed, but it's much more probable when you don't have an income stream and when your financial planning depends on not breaking up or not getting ill. > gloating about how the author's plan failed, without looking at how plans that fit your worldview don't account for the same life events any better. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about my "worldview" and about how I'm "gloating" over the author's misfortune. Don't.
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    > Sure, you can go bankrupt due to divorce or illness even when employed, but it's much more probable when you don't have an income stream and when your financial planning depends on not breaking up or not getting ill. This is exactly missing my point: Just because you retire early, doesn't mean your financial planning depends on you not breaking up or not getting ill. Just because you work out the rest of your existence, doesn't mean you've successfully accounted for breakups or illness. > Retiring early renders your financial situation much more fragile and susceptible to disruptive events. Why is that, exactly? > You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about my "worldview" and about how I'm "gloating" over the author's misfortune. What assumptions? Am I correct in saying that you believe "Retiring early renders your financial situation much more fragile and susceptible to disruptive events" is part of your worldview, and that you're taking the author's failure as a confirmation of that worldview?

by adwn 5y ago

kerkeslager 5y ago

...in which you cherry-pick one sentence from my post, ignoring the sentence before it. That's exactly why I said, "at least not any more unrealistic than any more traditional life plans". Working a job doesn't fix either of these problems. At least in the US, many people who go bankrupt due to medical issues have health insurance, usually provided by their job. These problems are compounded if your plan was to work, but you can't work due to your medical problems. And while medical or disability insurance can theoretically account for these worst-case scenarios, they can be so costly that they may cause financial problems even if no disaster happens. Divorce is also a major cause of bankruptcy, even if you're employed. You're doing exactly what my previous post accused people of doing: gloating about how the author's plan failed, without looking at how plans that fit your worldview don't account for the same life events any better.

adwn 5y ago
> That's exactly why I said, "at least not any more unrealistic than any more traditional life plans". And you're still wrong. Retiring early renders your financial situation much more fragile and susceptible to disruptive events. Sure, you can go bankrupt due to divorce or illness even when employed, but it's much more probable when you don't have an income stream and when your financial planning depends on not breaking up or not getting ill. > gloating about how the author's plan failed, without looking at how plans that fit your worldview don't account for the same life events any better. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about my "worldview" and about how I'm "gloating" over the author's misfortune. Don't.
- kerkeslager 5y ago
  > Sure, you can go bankrupt due to divorce or illness even when employed, but it's much more probable when you don't have an income stream and when your financial planning depends on not breaking up or not getting ill. This is exactly missing my point: Just because you retire early, doesn't mean your financial planning depends on you not breaking up or not getting ill. Just because you work out the rest of your existence, doesn't mean you've successfully accounted for breakups or illness. > Retiring early renders your financial situation much more fragile and susceptible to disruptive events. Why is that, exactly? > You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about my "worldview" and about how I'm "gloating" over the author's misfortune. What assumptions? Am I correct in saying that you believe "Retiring early renders your financial situation much more fragile and susceptible to disruptive events" is part of your worldview, and that you're taking the author's failure as a confirmation of that worldview?