5 ms·

I don't think that is accurate. I would say it is a combination of both. The article you link to obviously makes it sound like it's an exclusive function. But

I don't think that is accurate. I would say it is a combination of both. The article you link to obviously makes it sound like it's an exclusive function. But it simply dismisses the fact that not everyone can reasonably sustain the savings rates mentioned. Sure, there's reports of very motivated people that live on next to nothing and have a huge savings rate for the first 10 years of their working life, abstaining from everything including having a family and such. For the vast majority of people this is not something they can achieve and that is not taken into account by the 'simple math'. I would agree with the author that having Starbucks coffee twice a day is not worth retiring later. I'd even give him Cable TV. But I'm not going to live like a hermit. Different people are on different places of this gradient. If I increase my take home pay, I can stay on the same savings rate as before and retire earlier (assuming that I don't want to make a certain percentage of my last pay during retirement and instead have a fixed goal for my retirement income).

anonporridge 5y ago
We all have to make the choice between prioritizing creature comforts and freedom. I chose freedom. While my colleagues were living in fancy high rise apartments, buying new gaming rigs and cars, taking extravagant international vacations, and getting married and having kids, I was living in a basement studio with my college mattress on the floor and no car for several years while biking to work. I'm retired and they're still slaving away with no end in sight. No risk and sacrifice, no reward.
- leeoniya 5y ago
  > getting married and having kids i have not met anyone yet who is married with kids but would have preferred an earlier retirement instead. kids are more expensive than all the other things combined that you listed - no amount of living in the basement or saving 30k on having no car is going to make up for that.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    People regret having kids all the time. It's just not socially acceptable to talk about openly. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/m9vh8a/serious_parents_who_regret_having_kids_why/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/m9vh8a/serious_p... https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/1wvx04/serious_do_you_regret_having_children/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/1wvx04/serious_d... https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/ https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/
    - leeoniya 5y ago
      if you read the links you posted, a large portion of these are from people who weren't ready, or had kids with disabilities or adopted without enough vetting, or were not financially ready, etc. all parents go through difficult periods where they do regret not sleeping, or the work. but on the whole, the vast majority would not trade their kids for lonely family-less early retirement. just because you found 10k comments on the internet doesnt imply this sentiment applies to 7bn people. it's great that you'll have no regret about never having kids but instead have a ton of money and free time to spend on something else for 40 years.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        > just because you found 10k comments on the internet doesnt imply this sentiment applies to 7bn people. No, but at least the parent provided some kind of source to back up their assertion. Where's yours? I don't think it's safe to assume "nearly everyone who has kids don't have regrets". I went through a phase 5+ years ago where I was reading a lot about this sort of thing, and found that there are more people who regret having kids (entirely) than I would have expected, and way more people who regret the timing of when they had kids than I would have expected. As the parent points out, it is very very taboo -- especially for a mother -- to admit this sort of thing, so we can expect this to be under-reported.
        leeoniya 5y ago
        i've met plenty who have regretted the timing, or having 3+ kids instead of two. but never about having 1 kid instead of zero and it preventing their otherwise early retirement. having one kid will delay any kind of FIRE strategy significantly for all but the top 0.01%. the GP's argument is that people just dont have the willpower to make the necessary sacrifices to retire early...such as simply skipping having those pesky, retirement-draining offspring!
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  You call it creature comforts. Starbucks every day I would definitely count as that. I don't count having a family as a creature comfort. FWIW, I'm completely with you on living below one's means. I don't think the math is as simple as the article makes it out to be. It's missing a few value functions that need to be taken into account that influence what savings rate are reasonably possible at various absolute salaries. Your value functions are different from mine though mine are much closer to yours than the ones your colleagues seem to have with a few key differences. I'm with you on the fancy high rise. Strike that, nobody needs that. Basement studio with a mattress on the floor? Not worth the <$200 savings for a proper bed frame if you ask me. I've lived in a basement apartment for some years as well and it definitely wasn't bad at all. Very livable but it depends on where. One of my colleague's basement studio is not something I could've lived in. The house I now live in is the "cheapest house in the fanciest neighbourhood I can afford" (i.e. no, we did not buy a house at the top of what the bank would lend us). I'll give you gaming rigs (and games) as well. I've never been a fan of consoles. Regular "business laptops" for not much money can run reasonably good games that are a few years older perfectly fine. And you get to pick and choose the good ones as you have a treasure trove of information from people that have already played them. I would add cell phones to this (and laptops/computers for that matter). Buy a generation or two behind the new fancy one and you're not worse off at all but save a ton of money. Nobody needs the newest iPhone or fancy MacBook. (International) vacations is something that our value function would assign a relatively high value to. Can't do without. They aren't extravagant. Nobody's gonna get me to shell out 10k to go to Disney Land, sorry. But yes, we will spend the money to make memories together on a backpacking trip through some exotic country. Best ~500EUR flight and very cheap living costs while there that we ever spent. You can use simple math all you want to tell me how much earlier I could've retired if I had not spent the 500EUR and it won't change my mind. Which brings me to the next value function: family. Definitely worth it. Even retiring later is worth having a family.
- lhorie 5y ago
  > We all have to make the choice between prioritizing creature comforts and freedom. Of course, this starts from the assumption that work is inherently an undesirable activity and that conversely, pleasurable activities are incompatible w/ work. IMHO, it's not necessarily black and white: it's certainly possible to find satisfaction/fulfillment in one's work (to the extent that some people even choose to work despite not having the financial need to). Personally, I try to find alignment between being a "productive member of society" and deriving happiness from my efforts (both in terms of my work output as well as material gain). I'm sure much more can be said about the drivers of motivation as it relates to finding the meaning of one's life, and the whole thing about life being about the journey, rather than the destination. In terms of financial independence, I'd be wary of the word "freedom". It can be quite the loaded term, in the sense that one could equally argue that greatly restricting expenditure is "slavery to a run rate", whereas a steady income and a more lavish budget is "liberating". For someone like me who seeks well-roundedness, loaded terms irk me. Though to be clear, I'm not criticizing one lifestyle over another; both FIRE and career-ladder lifestyles are perfectly fine life choices IMHO.
lmm 5y ago
> If I increase my take home pay, I can stay on the same savings rate as before and retire earlier (assuming that I don't want to make a certain percentage of my last pay during retirement and instead have a fixed goal for my retirement income). That would be extremely unwise - if your savings rate hasn't changed then that means your lifestyle has inflated, and so your fixed retirement income will be a bigger step down and harder to sustain. This isn't just theoretical - people set a retirement goal when they're young thinking they can live like a student, gradually get accustomed to a more comfortable lifestyle, and then get a pretty sharp shock when they try to retire early and realise they're not actually willing to go back to living like that. The only way increasing your take home pay lets you retire earlier is if you use it to increase your savings rate, by not letting your lifestyle inflate proportionately.
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  FWIW, this was simply an example to refute the absolute claim of the parent and the article that only the savings rate matters for when you will be able to retire. This one counter example disproved that. Now as for your claim, I would agree that it is generally unwise to do that. It doesn't necessarily mean that your lifestyle has inflated in a bad way though. If I make 50k with 10% savings rate (5k savings), single bread winner w/ a family of 2 and I get a raise to 55k, I will now save 6k w/ a 10% rate. The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned. Now if we are talking lotto winner kind of raise while keeping the savings rate at the exact same and low mark, I would totally agree with you. 50k w/ 10% gets a raise to 300k and starts behaving like the parent mentioned (fancy apartment, extravagant travel etc.) I completely agree with you.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > FWIW, this was simply an example to refute the absolute claim of the parent and the article that only the savings rate matters for when you will be able to retire. This one counter example disproved that. But you don't have a counterexample, not unless you can show someone actually succeeding in retiring on a different savings rate. Plenty of people think they'll be happy to live more cheaply when they've retired, but experience suggests that this isn't actually true, which is what the article is going by. > The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned. Of course it does. You get in the habit of buying things for the kid. You get in the habit of going to these places. (I don't think it's bad to spend money on things you enjoy, especially if what you enjoy is helping others, but it's important to be aware that it's extremely habit-forming).

anonporridge 5y ago

We all have to make the choice between prioritizing creature comforts and freedom. I chose freedom. While my colleagues were living in fancy high rise apartments, buying new gaming rigs and cars, taking extravagant international vacations, and getting married and having kids, I was living in a basement studio with my college mattress on the floor and no car for several years while biking to work. I'm retired and they're still slaving away with no end in sight. No risk and sacrifice, no reward.

leeoniya 5y ago
> getting married and having kids i have not met anyone yet who is married with kids but would have preferred an earlier retirement instead. kids are more expensive than all the other things combined that you listed - no amount of living in the basement or saving 30k on having no car is going to make up for that.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  People regret having kids all the time. It's just not socially acceptable to talk about openly. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/m9vh8a/serious_parents_who_regret_having_kids_why/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/m9vh8a/serious_p... https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/1wvx04/serious_do_you_regret_having_children/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/1wvx04/serious_d... https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/ https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/
  - leeoniya 5y ago
    if you read the links you posted, a large portion of these are from people who weren't ready, or had kids with disabilities or adopted without enough vetting, or were not financially ready, etc. all parents go through difficult periods where they do regret not sleeping, or the work. but on the whole, the vast majority would not trade their kids for lonely family-less early retirement. just because you found 10k comments on the internet doesnt imply this sentiment applies to 7bn people. it's great that you'll have no regret about never having kids but instead have a ton of money and free time to spend on something else for 40 years.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > just because you found 10k comments on the internet doesnt imply this sentiment applies to 7bn people. No, but at least the parent provided some kind of source to back up their assertion. Where's yours? I don't think it's safe to assume "nearly everyone who has kids don't have regrets". I went through a phase 5+ years ago where I was reading a lot about this sort of thing, and found that there are more people who regret having kids (entirely) than I would have expected, and way more people who regret the timing of when they had kids than I would have expected. As the parent points out, it is very very taboo -- especially for a mother -- to admit this sort of thing, so we can expect this to be under-reported.
      - leeoniya 5y ago
        i've met plenty who have regretted the timing, or having 3+ kids instead of two. but never about having 1 kid instead of zero and it preventing their otherwise early retirement. having one kid will delay any kind of FIRE strategy significantly for all but the top 0.01%. the GP's argument is that people just dont have the willpower to make the necessary sacrifices to retire early...such as simply skipping having those pesky, retirement-draining offspring!
tharkun__ 5y ago
You call it creature comforts. Starbucks every day I would definitely count as that. I don't count having a family as a creature comfort. FWIW, I'm completely with you on living below one's means. I don't think the math is as simple as the article makes it out to be. It's missing a few value functions that need to be taken into account that influence what savings rate are reasonably possible at various absolute salaries. Your value functions are different from mine though mine are much closer to yours than the ones your colleagues seem to have with a few key differences. I'm with you on the fancy high rise. Strike that, nobody needs that. Basement studio with a mattress on the floor? Not worth the <$200 savings for a proper bed frame if you ask me. I've lived in a basement apartment for some years as well and it definitely wasn't bad at all. Very livable but it depends on where. One of my colleague's basement studio is not something I could've lived in. The house I now live in is the "cheapest house in the fanciest neighbourhood I can afford" (i.e. no, we did not buy a house at the top of what the bank would lend us). I'll give you gaming rigs (and games) as well. I've never been a fan of consoles. Regular "business laptops" for not much money can run reasonably good games that are a few years older perfectly fine. And you get to pick and choose the good ones as you have a treasure trove of information from people that have already played them. I would add cell phones to this (and laptops/computers for that matter). Buy a generation or two behind the new fancy one and you're not worse off at all but save a ton of money. Nobody needs the newest iPhone or fancy MacBook. (International) vacations is something that our value function would assign a relatively high value to. Can't do without. They aren't extravagant. Nobody's gonna get me to shell out 10k to go to Disney Land, sorry. But yes, we will spend the money to make memories together on a backpacking trip through some exotic country. Best ~500EUR flight and very cheap living costs while there that we ever spent. You can use simple math all you want to tell me how much earlier I could've retired if I had not spent the 500EUR and it won't change my mind. Which brings me to the next value function: family. Definitely worth it. Even retiring later is worth having a family.
lhorie 5y ago
> We all have to make the choice between prioritizing creature comforts and freedom. Of course, this starts from the assumption that work is inherently an undesirable activity and that conversely, pleasurable activities are incompatible w/ work. IMHO, it's not necessarily black and white: it's certainly possible to find satisfaction/fulfillment in one's work (to the extent that some people even choose to work despite not having the financial need to). Personally, I try to find alignment between being a "productive member of society" and deriving happiness from my efforts (both in terms of my work output as well as material gain). I'm sure much more can be said about the drivers of motivation as it relates to finding the meaning of one's life, and the whole thing about life being about the journey, rather than the destination. In terms of financial independence, I'd be wary of the word "freedom". It can be quite the loaded term, in the sense that one could equally argue that greatly restricting expenditure is "slavery to a run rate", whereas a steady income and a more lavish budget is "liberating". For someone like me who seeks well-roundedness, loaded terms irk me. Though to be clear, I'm not criticizing one lifestyle over another; both FIRE and career-ladder lifestyles are perfectly fine life choices IMHO.

lmm 5y ago

> If I increase my take home pay, I can stay on the same savings rate as before and retire earlier (assuming that I don't want to make a certain percentage of my last pay during retirement and instead have a fixed goal for my retirement income). That would be extremely unwise - if your savings rate hasn't changed then that means your lifestyle has inflated, and so your fixed retirement income will be a bigger step down and harder to sustain. This isn't just theoretical - people set a retirement goal when they're young thinking they can live like a student, gradually get accustomed to a more comfortable lifestyle, and then get a pretty sharp shock when they try to retire early and realise they're not actually willing to go back to living like that. The only way increasing your take home pay lets you retire earlier is if you use it to increase your savings rate, by not letting your lifestyle inflate proportionately.

tharkun__ 5y ago
FWIW, this was simply an example to refute the absolute claim of the parent and the article that only the savings rate matters for when you will be able to retire. This one counter example disproved that. Now as for your claim, I would agree that it is generally unwise to do that. It doesn't necessarily mean that your lifestyle has inflated in a bad way though. If I make 50k with 10% savings rate (5k savings), single bread winner w/ a family of 2 and I get a raise to 55k, I will now save 6k w/ a 10% rate. The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned. Now if we are talking lotto winner kind of raise while keeping the savings rate at the exact same and low mark, I would totally agree with you. 50k w/ 10% gets a raise to 300k and starts behaving like the parent mentioned (fancy apartment, extravagant travel etc.) I completely agree with you.
- lmm 5y ago
  > FWIW, this was simply an example to refute the absolute claim of the parent and the article that only the savings rate matters for when you will be able to retire. This one counter example disproved that. But you don't have a counterexample, not unless you can show someone actually succeeding in retiring on a different savings rate. Plenty of people think they'll be happy to live more cheaply when they've retired, but experience suggests that this isn't actually true, which is what the article is going by. > The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned. Of course it does. You get in the habit of buying things for the kid. You get in the habit of going to these places. (I don't think it's bad to spend money on things you enjoy, especially if what you enjoy is helping others, but it's important to be aware that it's extremely habit-forming).