NYT Article: How to Retire in Your 30s With $1 Million in the Bank

Yeah it takes some serious balls to lean FIRE. Going from being able to spend $40K to only being able to spend $20K would be incredibly difficult, whereas cutting back from, say $100K, seems a lot easier to me.

It's tough though, because not only do you have to be on board, but so does your spouse, which can be a much harder proposition. Very few people in our culture can avoid lifestyle inflation and the hedonic treadmill, so it's tough to find a suitable spouse. Basically: marry Asian.

What are you smoking?

Other investments, yes, but not from interest.

So it has a name. I’m this close to joining the FIRE movement, and have inching ever closer, even though I’d never heard of it. I thought it was just me.

One overlooked aspect is camaraderie with friends at work. People who leave (retire) early end up being incredibly bored.

I take a week off here and there for staycation, and the silence is deafening. Maybe I just need a better gameplan with what to do during that time.

3 mil in the bank wrote:

I tried some pretty gnarly drugs that left me with a long lasting, powerful, and positive outlook on life and outlook in general.

Huh?

Rather than trying to make a change in their "miserable" workplaces, for the betterment of themselves and their colleagues, these people have chosen to eject and scrape by. If they lived in any other time they would have been killed or outcast from the tribe. Respect is earned, and I have none for them.

Mr. Long "watched their net reach its highest point, despite not working, which he attributed to 'the passage of the tax cut for wealthy job creators like myself.'”

"Wealthy job creators like myself?" He was a salaried pharmacist!

ohia wrote:

One overlooked aspect is camaraderie with friends at work. People who leave (retire) early end up being incredibly bored.

I take a week off here and there for staycation, and the silence is deafening. Maybe I just need a better gameplan with what to do during that time.

Agreed our main focus is to put our matched 10% in retirement and double down on the house and get it paid off in 8-10 years. Ill be 40 then and then can save more towards retirement from 40-50.

Retiring at 50 scares me a bit cause most people retire and then basically fall apart and die from not doing anything. If my wife retired she'd live on the couch so I definitely dont think retirement is all its chalked up to be unless you have a plan to do something after and in our case it would be to travel but that ain't covering the 40+ other weeks.

It was one of the things I did that had a strong impact on my life that I wouldn't have been able to do if employed. Shrug.

I think for many of us, there is no feasible change that could possibly make it worthwhile. Time is our most precious resource, and spending nearly all the good hours of the day toiling to make executives and owners even richer just does not sit well with us. There's so much out there to do, to experience, and to discover and we're letting so much of it slip through our fingers in ultimately meaningless pursuits.

And "scrape by" is subjective. People find meaning and happiness in many ways. Deprivation is a state of mind, and I do not feel deprived living well below my means, therefore I am not deprived. We are escaping the trap set for us by modern society, which is very hard to do, and I believe that deserves respect.

That was sarcasm. In the original quote, it's followed with a "/s". Original reddit/blog post is at

This is very similar to my situation., but not exactly. I like in a very expensive city, known for being so, and in a really sweet neighborhood in a nice house, though the house is small and modest.

I didn't read the whole article nor did i read the posts here, but will later.

My wife and i did it by saving a lot, did all the remodel work on my house myself, saved for years and invested very very wisely (and was frankly lucky). I could retire early now but work is okay and i think i'd get bored. Will probably retire within a year, still a few years from planned retirement age of most.

Mostly, it worked for us because we saved a lot and i am very attentive and engaged in the stock market.

oh and if you bother to read that post, he ran a sub 3 thon so he might be reading this very thread right now!

also I’m pretty sure he’s on the spectrum based on his writing, ha.

As someone who has achieved FIRE at 30, 2 main things come to mind

1. There are two ways to save up money to retire, increase your income or increase your savings rate. We chose to do both. At our peak we were earning a combined income of $210k per year after taxes and only normal spending of $44k outside of housing. Without getting too complex we ended up buying and paying off 2 houses over 8 years (valued at $700k and $500k, not cheap, not expensive location), maxed out our 401ks and invested the rest. We live entirely off of rental income and dividends. Last year we spent $36k with 4 domestic trips and a 2 week long international trip. I feel in no way deprived in my life. I buy what I want, when I want. As far as I can tell, no one even knows we are FI.

2. Retiring early doesn't mean you no longer can work. It means you can work when you want on your own terms or not work when you want. My wife retired and stays at home with our kid now. I work because I find it fulfilling. I work at a start up, set my own hours (about 30-35 most weeks), train 2 hours plus a day, have equity, get to travel, and have unlimited vacation. It's currently a great set up and we put all of my income straight into savings. When it's no longer a great set up or fulfilling, I'll stop doing it.

All of the above is to say, it's not as outlandish as people think. To all the negative Neds and Nancys out there, I encourage you to shift your perspective. The majority of people on this board were/are competitive runners and know that whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. There truly is power in thinking big and positive. The thought of early retirement is no different.

You sound like you have the right idea, the focus for you is on the FI and the RE. Most of the people you read about are obsessed with the RE that they are skimming themselves so much that they are constraining themselves to such a degree that, while math and historical performance may support the idea that they don't need any additional money to live that lifestyle, I wouldn't exactly call them financially independent.

I think the article below should be required reading for any young person:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

Sure, it is a bit extreme, but if you save your tail off and live frugally, you can do just fine.

A few years ago the missus and I decided to take some inspiration from the minimalist crowd. We now rent our home, own less than $10,000 worth of stuff, and spend about $45,000 per year. We are a lot happier and achieved financial independence by the time we were 45. We now work simply because we choose to. It is hard to describe that feeling - not working because you have to, but because you want to.

I agree that it's worth reading. The big takeaway is that it provides a reason for your saving of money. I was always relatively frugal compared to those making as much as me as a result of not having much growing up, but I never knew what I was saving the money for. I thought maybe a house and the 401K money I had was for retirement. But now see that the money I have provides me with no need to keep a specific job.

That being said, I think the "shockingly simple math" is an oversimplification and dangerous to accept as a gospel. Particularly if you only satisfy the math by reducing your spending to a point where you can't reduce it any more.

Also, it suffers from confirmation and recency bias from those whose investing life has been essentially 2009 on

also, it puts a lot of faith in marriage lasting forever

First Way: "Start with $1M"

Second Way: "That will be $300,000 for that cup of coffee." (Inflation ala Venezuela)

A million in investments living off the proceeds for 40-50 years doesn't seem like a recipe for success. They'll end up back at work. Health care costs will eat them alive when they get past a certain age.

Someone above claims to be retired but is working 35 hours a week. Huh?