4 ms·
FIRE is exactly that. It is living like a poor person on a well off person income and banking the difference to retire early. For example, my very nice apartme
by notyourday 5y ago
FIRE is exactly that. It is living like a poor person on a well off person income and banking the difference to retire early.
For example, my very nice apartment in NYC costs me about $4500/mo. I get a 35-40 minutes commute to my office door to door. I have a co-worker who lives in PA. His one way commute is 2h-3h ( depending on a day ) one way but he pays only $1300 for his apartment and $1000/mo on the commute, making his cost $2300/mo. He says it is a great deal because he saving all that money and he is going to retire before me.
We also have a custodian. The custodian is paid much, much less than either of us. The custodian happens to live next to my co-worker. In fact, it was the custodian who told my co-worker about that place.
Because of how much an average American works, including my co-worker, life of my coworker pretty much matches the life of our custodian.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago>FIRE is exactly that. It is living like a poor person on a well off person income and banking the difference to retire early. No, it's living below your means, saving and investing, because you value your time more than you value stuff. Your anecdotes are exactly that. The average person saving for FIRE is no miser.
- notyourday 5y ago> because you value your time more than you value stuff. Yes! One trades money for time. FIRE is the exact opposite - with FIRE one would pay for money with time.
- ck425 5y ago> FIRE is exactly that. It is living like a poor person on a well off person income and banking the difference to retire early. Here's the thing though, it's easy to live a fun fulfilling life while 'living like a poor person'. You just need to figure out what you enjoy and how you maximise that enjoyment while minimising spending. Your commuting example is an example of saving the wrong way, commuting time has been shown to have a massive impact on happiness. A better property example would be looking at extra features you don't need. My flat's a one bed, with most of it being one big room about 390 square feet in size. I could easily afford a bigger one with a lot more features but I've got what I need, so why waste the money? Let's break down all the things that could be better. - It has very limited storage (I could convert a bit of loft space if I really needed to) The limited storage makes me consider whether I really need things when I buy them, reducing impulse spending and encouraging me to keep a semi-minimalist home, which I think is nicer. - It only has one bedroom I have a big comfy couch so friends can crash easily enough but I'm never folks first choice which is actually convenient. The lack of an office has sucked during covid but even if I had one I wouldn't want to WFH so hopefully it won't be an issue going forward. - No Garden I live in one of the greenest prettiest cities in the world and there dozens of parks and walks close by. If I want to sit in the sun it's a very short walk and it encourages me to get out and about. - No Bathtub I rarely took baths when I had one so not having one isn't a big deal. Actually now when I go on holiday and get one I'm really excited and enjoy them a lot more as a treat so overall I'm actually happier than when I had one. - Expensive to heat In non-covid times I spend most winter evenings out and about and a flat with cheaper heating generally costs a chunk more, so the extra expense is still less. For some people those might be deal breakers and that's fair enough. Everyone is different. The point is to figure out what makes you happy and get it as cheap as possible not to be as cheap as possible regardless of happiness.