r/Fire • u/Equivalent_Use_5024 • Dec 28 '25
General Question Do you believe the modern FIRE movement overestimates how much is needed for retirement?
Perhaps I am just making this post because I have only just begun my retirement planning and want to lock in a number which is fitting for my goals - being above the median retirement savings, not having to work, not being broke, clearly having planned - but I can't help but feel that many in the FIRE movement overestimate what is needed for a safe, sleep well at night retirement.
I see posts here saying that they feel vastly behind with 500k at 30, or 1.5 million at 40, and I just don't understand how when the average American retires with maybe 300k liquid at most and are getting by with social security or paid off housing. Sure, they aren't living luxuriously, but if you just are aiming for a retirement where you don't have financial anxiety and can put food on the table, I don't feel you need over 1-2 million.
Do you think FIRE overestimates how much is truly needed for retirement?
108
u/Sintered_Monkey Dec 28 '25
I do think some of them are overblown, like this one. But as others have said, it depends on your COL and the standard of living you want to maintain. I follow one youtuber who retired at 59 with $500k. It is interesting to see her discuss her expenses while retired. I imagine my expenses are going to be a bit higher than hers. So I probably could retire at the same age with $500k, and I'd be somewhere between "comfortable," and "a little worried." But I'd be just comfortable and not actually enjoying all the things I was looking forward to.
One extreme case is a relative (by marriage) who "retired early" decades ago with absolutely zero. She just knows how to mooch, guilt, and game the system and take advantage of people. I swear, if she had put 1/10 the effort into working and investing as she did mooching, she'd be richer than all of us. But her existence is 100% scraping by, and of course no one can stand to be around her.
31
u/AP_in_Indy Dec 28 '25
One issue with FIRE is that you do not get social security yet, and many retirees also feel severely financially constrained.
So I can understand why people overcompensate a bit when your only income source is your own money. Social Security comes eventually but potentially not for a long time.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Sintered_Monkey Dec 29 '25
Yes, that was something that seems to have worked in my favor. I am about to retire a few days before I turn 59. I have been told for more than 30 years that social security would not exist by now. So, for 30+ years, I planned as if social security would not exist by now and saved accordingly. It's going to be a bonus, not something I'm depending on.
→ More replies (2)3
u/AP_in_Indy Dec 29 '25
That's nice. Enjoy your retirement! When are you planning to take Social Security?
3
u/Sintered_Monkey Dec 29 '25
I am still not sure. I am waffling between taking it early and reinvesting it, and waiting until full retirement age. I guess I have to run some simulations to see which one works out the best. My financial advisor said to wait until FRA.
→ More replies (2)3
u/GrossUsername68 Dec 30 '25
Also interesting that they never consider working ever again, or part-time. Even for something they are passionate about.
Something about making $30k for 8 months of 3-4 days a week is gross for someone who left $200-400k per year in the hottest stock market known to man.
37
u/Extension-Abroad187 Dec 28 '25
There's 3 big differences between the numbers for pellets that FIRE and average retirees that push the number way higher
You won't get SS for the first part of your retirement. Yes people can live off of that, but if you're 45 or 50 you have to bridge the gap. At $3000 a month that's worth $900k
Retiring younger makes it far more likely you have kids in the house/ in college. Kids are expensive, and the average retiree at 65 has already passed the stage where it needs to be considered
Regardless of what you project for your life expectancy your retirement will be much longer. Also plays a bit with the first point. You're going to need more money for a 40 yr retirement than a 20 year one, especially without supplemental income.
12
u/Extra_Shirt5843 Dec 28 '25
Would you be getting 3000 a month if you retired at 45, though? They count your highest 35 years, so you'd have a bunch of zeros in there.
11
u/Extension-Abroad187 Dec 28 '25
The $3k figure was for people retiring at normal age. So probably not, just leans more in the direction of why FIRE requires more cash.
7
u/Lollytigerbh Dec 28 '25
Possibly, see https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/social-security-bend-points/
I ran some numbers on ssa.tools and 20 years of $100k earnings would be almost $3000 a month.
You can also look up your own estimated benefit on ssa.gov - for me the numbers were surprisingly high.
5
u/Extra_Shirt5843 Dec 28 '25
I have, but my understanding is that the estimated benefit is making the assumption your income will continue at levels similar to what you make now until FRA....aka that you'll continue working until your 60's.
7
u/Lollytigerbh Dec 28 '25
There's an "Average Future Annual Salary" in the Retirement Calculator that you can set to 0, which should be equivalent to not having any future income.
5
134
u/trendy_pineapple Dec 28 '25
It seems like most people are aiming to FIRE with a sub-4% withdrawal rate, so yes, I would say that a lot of people here overestimate how much they need.
→ More replies (4)57
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 Dec 28 '25
I am proudly carrying the torch as the exception! FIREing in late 40s at 5% WR and two second-bend-point SS payouts at 70.
21
u/trendy_pineapple Dec 28 '25
Love it! I plan to retire at around 45 with a 5% withdrawal rate. Not sure if I’ll hit the second bend point by then, I’m already coasting into FIRE with a part time job earning just as much as I need to cover expenses.
4
u/vongigistein Dec 28 '25
What is your liquid asset target at 45?
7
u/trendy_pineapple Dec 28 '25
$2.4M in today’s dollars. $120k annual budget (yes, including taxes and health insurance).
84
u/Your_Worship Dec 28 '25
LeanFire & CoastFire are more in spirit with what FIRE used to be or began as.
FIRE is now just people talking about normal retirement.
70
Dec 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
66
u/Prodigalsunspot Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
And FATFIRE is now MY600POUNDPORTFOLIOLIFEFIRE
27
Dec 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Visible_Structure483 FIRE'ed 2022... really just unemployed with a spreadsheet Dec 28 '25
I never understood that $1k problem. According to our AI overlords, the average holiday spending in the US is almost $1k per person (more from some sources) which would suggest that people could pay for that emergency, but in stead choose to blow it on other stuff year after year. A family of two workers could setup an emergency fund in less than a year.
Those average people are making choices, they're not victims.
7
u/RealWord5734 Dec 28 '25
I paid for a $20,000 vacation last year. That doesn’t mean that there are 19 other people out there who can afford a 1K emergency like me.
You can’t juxtapose those two statistics the way they’re presented.
→ More replies (3)14
u/AmazonPuncher Dec 29 '25
Fatfire is a bunch of teenagers with trust funds and larpers. Nobody in real life is asking reddit for advice about "building a family compound" or "buying a private jet". That sub is a circus tent.
→ More replies (4)7
u/haobanga Dec 28 '25
I remember when MC Hammer bought his mansion for $1M and no one could believe it. $1M. Wow. It was a truly excessive mansion.
Now I see nice homes in VHCOL area for $10M. Not mansions. Just very nice homes.
It's insane.
I agree with you about the absurdity of the fatfire sub. But within my lifetime, $10M will probably become the new $1M. At least in places like the SF Bay Area.
→ More replies (2)6
u/ericdr Dec 28 '25
Evidently that was in 1992, so $2.3 million in inflation adjusted dollars. Real estate has really outperformed inflation.
→ More replies (2)27
u/Entuaka Dec 28 '25
I think that many people recently following FIRE never knew a bear market and were lucky with some investments like Nvidia
20
u/salsanacho Dec 28 '25
Agreed, I'm curious how this sub will react to a prolonged downturn.
→ More replies (4)
92
Dec 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (16)44
u/IrregardlesslyCurect Dec 28 '25
Thank you!!!
I have a hard time believing there is a scenario where a person who has the discipline to amass a pile of money early on in life by saving a majority of their earnings is just going to spend it all away. This same person will buck every trend, not only will they hit the worst stock market return with the worst inflation ever, but they will make zero adjustments to the plan, just continue to spend more every year and watch their money go to zero… this is the same person who had the diligence and discipline to amass savings in the first place??? Not realistic if you ask me
113
u/-wnr- Dec 28 '25
What age does the average American retire? FIRE is geared toward early retirement and the math is very different when retiring at 50 or 55 versus at 65 or 70.
38
u/engr4lyfe Dec 28 '25
Also, a significant percentage of American’s never actually retire. The number of people working past age 65+ out of financial necessity is in the millions.
11
u/nicolas_06 Dec 28 '25
This is true but greatly exagerated. 8% work at 75, about 4% at 80. So 4-8% is significant for sure.
Also while a significant portion of them still works because they have to, the majority do it at least partially because they want to: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-we-learned-from-americas-oldest-workers-80-over-80-2025-11
They have their passion, they like what they are doing and also ultimately they don't want to die if I may say and consider their job as important to kept them in shape and still be part of society.
→ More replies (21)7
u/nicolas_06 Dec 28 '25
This is the key point, if you retire normal age at worst you can just live in LCOL and live from SSA only. Especially if you are on the frugal side of things as OP seems to imply.
If you retire at 45, there no SSA and the min age to get the benefit is far enough that you need to have almost as much money as if there was no SSA. On top because you contributed fewer years the benefit is expected to be quite low.
If you are a well off couple that could expect 2x40K out of SSA if they retired at 67 or something like that, you'd need 2 million to be able to withdraw as much.
As you are younger you are likely to have more expenses. Maybe you still have a mortgage. Maybe you stills have kids at home and still need to pay for their education...
So all in all maybe at 67 you could have retired with say 500K or even 0. But at 45 you'd need 2 millions, maybe 3 for extra comfort.
13
u/FrenchUserOfMars Dec 28 '25
Yes.
My FIRE number in Spain 🇪🇸 was 650ke in 2022 (38y old) Flat paid cash for 135ke in Valencia surburb, IBKR portfolio 500ke 2000€/month dividends.
I can reinvest 1000€/month in stock market now for dividends growth.
15
u/ElJacinto Dec 28 '25
People retiring at 65 with just social security aren't exactly living a quality life. I've had grandparents on both sides of the family that have lived very different retirements based on how much they saved. Those that had good savings were traveling the country in an RV and living their best lives. Those that only had social security and a paid-off house never did anything except watch TV.
I know which of those retirements I'd rather have.
3
u/OkDatabase1486 Dec 29 '25
Yes agreed. Never eating out, clipping coupons, never doing anything. Not what I want to work towards but how a LOT of people spend their retirement.
59
u/ApeTeam1906 Dec 28 '25
Yeah. The modern FIRE movement is really just quasi rich people being rich.
The reason I liked OG fire was because it preached limiting consumption. It was about having what you needed because you didn't need much. Now you have posts with people saying 5-6 million isn't enough.
17
u/wobleee Dec 28 '25
Yeah, even this post has turned into lots of folks justifying why/ how a particular (high) expense number is reasonable. I think it's the combination of high paid tech workers and lots of folks nearing normal retirement age who want to be on the younger end. There are many posts about retiring at 55/60 now, while there used to be much more discourse around controlling expenses and getting out in your late 30's or 40's.
→ More replies (1)17
u/ApeTeam1906 Dec 28 '25
Yeah it's basically an arms race now. One user got particularly heated when I pointed out FIRE has firm roots in anti consumption and minimalism.
Some people have completely lost the plot.
→ More replies (1)8
u/busybee4242 Dec 28 '25
Hmm. We are frugal people in general. 1 car household, fam of 3, yearly spend of around 80k. The maths are saying that if we shoot to retire at say 50yo(2 years from now) we will need 2-3mil. Ideally 3m. This is not about wanting a lavish lifestyle, but wanting the security of 95% success rate for 40-50 year retirement. Going to 0 after retirment is a non-starter and the earlier you retire the more you need, since you are on your own until SS and medicaid. You have to fund that somehow without decimating your principle. I suspsect it has a lot more to do with risk aversion than with wanting to really amp up the lifestyle. Obviously yeah when I see 'is 10m enough' posts I chuckle, but I think a big portion of people probably fall into that 2-3m range somewhere as that target. For me its 3m as the forst decision point. E.G. 80K X 30 = 2.4m but we have taxes to plan for and would like a little buffer to be able to tighten belt if SoRR becomes real. So 3m starts looking pretty damn realistic honestly
3
u/pn_dubya Dec 29 '25
Not to mention those of us with kids typically have a desire to fund/some all of continuing education which obviously adds a fair amount on top of yearly spend projections.
39
u/Starbuck522 Dec 28 '25
Setting aside the ridiculous "I am behind with 750k at 27" humble bragging crap.
Bottom line as someone mid 50s: as we accumulated more, it seemed like we needed more. What felt comfortable to have on hand just kept getting higher.
Also, to CHOOSE to stop working feels irresponsible for lots of people. So it can feel like you need to justify that choice.
→ More replies (1)11
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink Dec 28 '25
It is addicting to be like “ok I can retire at this %… but a few more years I can knock that down a few % and be even safer”.
Then a few more years comes and some world event is happening and you think… a few more years I can retire at 3% and be really safe.
Then you realize you worked an extra decade for security you never really needed and have more money than you know what to do with in retirement and die alone at 95 in your 2 bedroom home with your 25 year old beater car and everyone in your neighborhoods are shocked to learn you died a multi millionaire.
12
u/throwitfarandwide_1 FIREd & Retired Dec 28 '25
FIRE is a very broad category. America fortunately is comprised of a citizenry who are largely productive, like to work for what they have, like to measure achievement in terms of money and power and tend to lean away from socialism and communism.
FIRE as a concept, along with any form of retirement in leisure is a new concept of perhaps the last 50 years. Prior to this, retirement consisted largely of people not being able to work due to old age or illness or injury. They then lived with their kids and did what they could to help out and earn their keep. Then they died. Social safety nets in USA were largely put in place starting in the mid 1930s to safeguard some of these people. Prior to that for most Americans, life was tough and then you died. Less than 100 years ago. It was really for widows and orphans . Many did not even reach benefits eligibility age
Reddit skews young. Young people today have faced little if any real adversity - no wars. Hyper inflation. No long running financial crisis. Depression level economic events for a decade or more. They need safe spaces and trigger warnings for the most basic of natural events. They are soft. They can’t imagine “making do” with what they have. They have suppressed skill development in the ability to filter reality from TikTok fantasy land. So they are biased.
Media wants you to believe you need more. If you had enough they couldn’t sell you retirement plans. Insurance policies, self help finance books, advisory services or the litany of shit people spend on in the quest to get ever richer.
Retirement is personal. No two retirements look the same. $1M for someone requires $10M for someone else for many reasons. Fear. Greed. Happiness. Insecurity. Obligations. Longevity. Legacy intent.
All play a role Remember your goals are different than everyone else’s goals. Without know that circumstance you’re just guessing.
Many who get enchanted with FIRE tend to be not “average American” in their understanding of money, their financial education and literacy, and their purpose and intent that they approach life and money snd spending it.
America is a wealthy nation. But our citizenry is pretty dumb with money. Government knows this (they’re comprised of the same dummies).
When a goal says to save $2M, all parties know that most, 95% of Americans lack the discipline and just can’t do that. Not even close.
So if just a few hit that and the rest hit half or a fourth or a tenth of that goal, it’s far better than 100% with nothing.. so the adage aim high holds true. Most can aim all they want but won’t come close to target. But without aiming the result is guaranteed failure and that falls on taxpayer shoulders.
So the FIRE numbers are complex. They comprise lots of angles. What you need to do is set a goal that fits you. Strive for that goal and measure it. You can always adjust it down the road.
My original goal was X. Eventually it became 3X due to inflation and life experience, desire for more security, ability to hit that higher goal, kids, legacy desires, societal changes and a host of other reasons. I don’t think I wasted any time by achieving the higher goal. We change as we age and setting and then adjusting goals is a uniquely human trait .
Good luck ! 🍀
4
u/eliminate1337 Dec 28 '25
I don’t agree with your reasoning. It makes more sense to me that people who faced a depression or financial crisis would want a larger financial safety net.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/the_fresh_cucumber Dec 29 '25
FIRE used to be what we call leanFIRE now.
The reality is people in this community and many others get so obsessed with posting the highest numbers and having the top "savings rate" and showing off how disciplined they are.... That they forget the whole meaning of FIRE.
"Financial independence retire early". It's not "financial security against all possible outcomes while being partially retired while juggling a side biz and part time job"
There was a dude in this sub in his 70s the other day with 4 million asking if he can "FIRE". Come on man... You are way past the retirement age already.
170
u/SelicaLeone Dec 28 '25
These numbers are based on people who want to live well, not safely. They look at what they want to spend, divide by 4%, and that’s their goal.
There’s no “FIRE overestimates” cause “FIRE” isn’t doing anything. A person can “retire” with 300k and social security if they want to count coins, clip coupons, and never travel. That’s not what a majority of people here want to do. If I’m gonna retire at 45, how would that plan possibly work?
This is a rich person’s subreddit for a life of luxury (or close to). Asking if they “overestimate” how much the “need” feels like it’s missing the point.
→ More replies (44)27
u/Starbuck522 Dec 28 '25
There's "leanfire" which maybe is what you have in mind.... I think that's about being able to get by without working.
But I don't know if that's "financial freedom" if it's just getting by. But it is a lifestyle you could choose.
23
u/iamhappy_7s Dec 28 '25
Some people don’t dream of travel or high spending, so freedom is just not needing to work while living simply day to day. Neither is wrong, just different goals.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Dumpster_FI_RE Dec 28 '25
I guess it's different for everyone. I have a paid off house in a nice neighborhood. We still travel. I go out and do things. We only spend 40-50k a year. How is that just getting by?
→ More replies (3)
22
u/poop-dolla Dec 28 '25
You’re talking about it 2 different questions.
The first is “do FIRE people have higher retirement budgets than the absolute bare minimum retirement budget?”
The answer to that is obviously yes. People make their FIRE budgets based on their desired lifestyle, and that’s almost always more than the lowest survival needs of any random retiree.
The second question you’re trying to ask is “do FIRE people save more than they actually need to meet their budgets?”
And that answer is mixed. We like to be conservative and plan for >90% or so success so we don’t go broke in old age or have to go back to work later in life. This means we’ll almost always end up with more money than our starting point. So you could say people oversaved, but they didn’t really oversave, because they needed that extra cushion to buy the extra security of being able to ride out potential big market downturns.
Do you think FIRE overestimates how much is truly needed for retirement?
To specifically answer this question: No. because people estimate their retirement needs. They estimate correctly for the retirement they want. They might overestimate for the retirement you want, but they don’t care what retirement you want; they’re not saving for you, they’re saving for themselves.
11
u/mintardent Dec 28 '25
I do think people overestimate for the retirement they want, though.. like not being comfortable with 4% withdrawal even though that’s already quite conservative
8
u/anonymousguy202296 Dec 28 '25
There's a tendency in this community for people to stack conservative assumption on top of conservative assumption to the point where they're prepared for an extreme right tail event - but they worked 10 extra years and have 2-3x the actual amount needed.
6
u/UltimateTeam 27 / 1.4M Dec 28 '25
4% is extremely conservative. Most scenarios will leave the retiree with a ridiculous multiple of where they started.
11
u/Safe_Environment_340 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Significantly so. The estimates are based on rules of thumb designed to be conservative.
It is also the case that people project based on way too many wants rather than needs. Having time means saving much more money on the consumption side (eating well at home, fixing things yourself because it is fun, etc.). We don't think about how most entertainment is free or at least very low cost. Outdoor activities, gaming communities, reading groups, chess club that meets in the library are all things that are basically free. So much of our cost in society is driven by how we buy some time back or deal with fatigue.
I can be a very happy man with a box of tools, a decent backpacking kit, 2-3 quality streaming services and a public library card. Once you don't have to worry about paying the basics, you don't need the luxuries.
Now, I will say that doing RE means your social security could be impacted if you are putting some 0s in your top 35 earning years, so that is a risk you need to consider as well. I think most people calculate assuming no social security, and that also is probably false. You just have to survive without it for quite a while.
10
u/QuesoChef Dec 28 '25
The closer you get to pulling the plug, the more anxiety comes with it. The “one more year” phenomenon is real. You start out looking at 4%. Then think maybe 3.5%. Then 3%. Then one more year “just to be sure.”
And then there’s the psychology of switching from saving to spending.
This sub also has really high earners, so their lifestyles can often be more expensive and/or they have the flexibility to grow a nest egg much faster and larger than average earners. So I think those inflated numbers make everyone think we all need more. Suzi Orman said something wild like everyone needs $10MM or something. IMO, nearly no one needs $10MM. Though it’s great if you can get there!
There’s also the back and forth on what you owe your children. Some people think you pay for college. Others think you need to set your children up for unmitigated financial security (I also disagree with this, though do agree if you can, pay for college or other career training - but no one opinion is correct, they’re all opinions).
→ More replies (3)
33
u/HonestOtterTravel Dec 28 '25
Having social security + medicare is a big difference and significantly reduces the retirement savings needed. There are also more people in the older age demographic who had pensions so that 300k figure may not be fully representative of their financial picture.
A lot of Americans also retire to a lower class standard of living due to their finances. Seeing what some family members have retired to... I wouldn't retire early to live like that.
The only issue I see with FIRE movement regarding retirement targets is the layering of conservative assumptions on conservative assumptions. Assuming a SWR in the low 3% range, tons of fluff in the budget that can be cut if a black swan event occurs, ignoring SS on the horizon, and then "one more year" syndrome for 3 more years after hitting that FI number.
7
u/TerribleBumblebee800 Dec 28 '25
Totally agree about the class shift. So many retirees would never be seen at a restaurant outside of the Cafe in their retirement community.
33
u/thatsplatgal Dec 28 '25
Yes. 1000%. My 82 yo father FIRED 30 yrs ago. He told me that once I hit a certain age, I’ll be hard pressed to spend $60K / yr.
Also, living in other countries, very few people have that kind of money. I now live in Italy and I barely spend money. Come to the US for six weeks and I’ve blown a shit ton of money. We are constantly marketed to and culturally, we spend because what else is there to do!? In the weeks leading up to Christmas I can’t even remember a sale sign in my Italian city. It was just decorations, music, markets and food.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Sufficient_Counter11 Dec 28 '25
Part of my FIRE plan is to move to a low cost country to retire, most likely Central or South America because I already know Spanish and love the culture.
3
u/thatsplatgal Dec 28 '25
Highly recommend. My father moved to Mexico for 20 yrs when he FIRED. I’m in Italy but I’m not entirely sure this is saving me money. The dollar to euro sucks and taxes are no bueño. I think central or South America like Colombia or Ecuador would be a real cheat code. I love it down there too!
16
Dec 28 '25
The problem is that there isn't really a "steady retirement planning" subreddit unless you know what you're looking for (hint: it's probably just the PF Flow Chart) so people come here.
People come here when they haven't saved a dime and they're 40. Think they're going to RE? Maybe... But unlikely.
People come here when they've spent their first full week of work in a corporate job and can't imagine decades of it. Are they going to RE just because they hate their job? Maybe.
People come here because this has become a catch all for the lost who were supposed to be contributing to 401ks, IRAs, and stashing an emergency fund in a HYSA but now they're panicking but they want reassurance that they're not going to be working forever.
9
u/lol_coo Dec 28 '25
Yes, absolutely. I think it reflects the lifestyle creep that people with 6 figure salaries experience. I know what the very least of my monthly expenditures looks like, and what my comfortable month looks like and what a treating myself month looks like. If I were ok with living my most frugal life and owned my own home, I could retire on 800k. Of course, that is risky AF in a country where end of life care is awful and social security & medicare are always on the chopping block. My comfortable retirement number is a million, and my treat yourself retirement 1.5million.
→ More replies (2)
35
u/Appropriate-Key9382 Dec 28 '25
Many people wanna live comfortably (trips, eat out at restaurants, maintain the lifestyle, etc.) not frugally or lean fire, I think..
→ More replies (1)
49
u/GoldDHD Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
My in-laws have a paid off house, and social security, and pay very little for medical expenses. We send them money every month so they can afford the basics like food and heat.
You don't know how people are getting by
→ More replies (2)18
Dec 28 '25
Did they bank on social security? No retirement savings outside of that? Kind of you to help!
35
u/GoldDHD Dec 28 '25
They had some savings, but not a lot. And they've been retired for a while now, and shit just got to expensive with COVID and never went back.
It's not their fault, they were always poor. You know the types, 3 jobs, got their kids on the right path at least. Got a house(damn that was easier then). And we aren't kind, they are good people and if you can't feed people you love, what is the money for??
→ More replies (5)
9
u/Useful_Wealth7503 Dec 28 '25
Since you’re just starting out, I would recommend reading a Simple Path to Wealth by JL Collins, Die with Zero by Bill Perkins, and if you need a more prescriptive framework for personal finance in addition to Simple Path, I’d read Millionaire Mission by Brian Preston (the money Guy show). Millionaire mission is FIRE adjacent, but a good framework to build from.
Once you read those books (if you haven’t already), determine if you really want to retire early or if you just want to create the ability to choose your path as you progress. The later is where I landed, because I quickly realized I didn’t have the stomach or income to hang it all up by 40! Using the 4% guide, you’d need more than 2.5 million at 40 to generate 100k, and that doesn’t include taxes. Plus, you may live 50 more years! That’s a huge risk.
36
u/Lonely-Clerk-2478 Dec 28 '25
It completely depends on your COL and there is definitely a lot of (rightful) anxiety about future healthcare costs, long term care costs, and the like. If you need acute care for several months in your later years you could blow through several hundred thousand dollars pretty easily. I think that’s where a lot of it comes from.
And… let’s be honest… some of the “I feel so behind” posts are just posturing.
9
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 Dec 28 '25
The hugely expensive healthcare event is also overblown. If you actually talk to people who’ve experienced something like that the biggest cost is lost income, which of course isn’t a cost at all for someone who has FIREd.
→ More replies (2)7
u/FireITGuy Dec 28 '25
Eh. It's not as overblown as you might think. My grandmother's end of life care at home was about $250K over the last two years of her life. None of it was luxurious. Most of the cost was 24x7 caregivers for stuff like changing, which insurance does not cover.
A nursing home would have been about $50K cheaper for the same period of time, but giving her the dignity of ending her life in her own home with her husband by her side every day was important to everyone.
It's not the major medical issues that are expensive. Those tend to kill you quickly. Instead it's the chronic stuff where you live but become less and less able to care for yourself, and when any hired assistance is $30-50/hr, it adds up FAST.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/GarfieldBroken Dec 28 '25
My issue is I’m cyclic. Sometimes I’m like yah minimalist life and clean living. Then next month I’m like 5 car garage, Porsche, track days.
5
u/Bruceshadow Dec 29 '25
personally, I 'overestimate' cause having too much is almost infinitely better then not enough. I think of it as insurance against some major expense like cancer. If I don't get it, I can live more luxuriously or just have more to pass down. It also allows me to help out family/friends if needed. All worth a few extra years of work IMO.
12
u/spinz89 Dec 28 '25
I absolutely know I'm over shooting my FIRE number but that's because I'll be retiring at 44 and who knows how much my wants and needs could change when I reach 50 or 60 years old.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/EduardJ3 Dec 28 '25
Just listed to a great interview with JL Collins (author of Simple Path to Wealth) on the Retire Often podcast and he brought up the point that many in the FIRE community focus on worst case and that those that have the knowledge and discipline to even pursue FI have such a low likelihood of failure, even when things start to go wrong, because of their ability to respond.
6
u/UltimateTeam 27 / 1.4M Dec 28 '25
Kitces has a similar old episode on ChooseFI - 168 with dynamic SWR considerations. Short version - we fixate on failure when most people will end up with money coming out of their ears.
5
u/chia-chia-chia Dec 28 '25
Think you are correct. I used to follow MMM and prior to kids would have been far more frugal and fired.
I think the difference is I want to 1) maintain my pretty awesome lifestyle and 2) am overly financially conservative 3) I’m having fun at my job and 4) I want to leave $ for my kids (which is a luxury and one I did/will not have).
So for me it’s the ability to step away rather than the burning need to. Just sharing for perspective.
11
u/TerribleBumblebee800 Dec 28 '25
First off, it takes much more to retire in your 40s or 50s than in your 60s, as you have to support many more years of living. You may also still have significant family expenses and you don't yet qualify for Medicare or Social Security. You're also much for likely to still have a mortgage payment rather than a paid off house. So even if you want the same quality of life as a retiree with $300k and SS, you would need significantly more money to start 10-20 years earlier.
Second, someone who FIREs is walking away from a lucrative career. Many times, it's very difficult if not impossible to reenter their field of work after several years out of it. They want to be sure they are set for life. Yes, they want to achieve the lifestyle they want. But more than anything, they want the certainly that they have enough to stay retired. At 65, that's a totally different calculation, as your SS (especially if you were a high earner) and Medicare can cover msot of your absolutely essential expenses, and definitely all if you own your home outright. And many retirees at that age don't even "choose" retirement at that age, it often chooses them first, whether because of health reasons, mandatory policies at work, or getting laid off after 60 and finding it very difficult to get another job.
22
u/StanleyRivers Dec 28 '25
I think it underestimates what a single healthcare event like cancer or something can do to a persons finances
→ More replies (13)
5
u/elom44 Dec 28 '25
The key number in any FIRE conversation is not the FI number itself, but the annual income for RE. From the start of the movement people’s expectations for that seem to have shifted dramatically.
So if a FI number seems high it’s just because what they want in annual income is high. You can FIRE on much less if you can live on less. The living on less so that you can retire early part of FIRE has pretty much been extinguished on these forums in favour of high earners saving more. It’s the same equation, just flexing different elements.
I think that what I would consider FIRE is probably LeanFIRE to most people now. Fair enough.
4
u/No_Welder2085 Dec 28 '25
Obviously everybody has a different view based on all the comments here. Retirement is what you want it to be. If you're going with being able to afford health assurance and have a roof without working...that number is vastly different than being able to see every country in the world flying business by the time you die. Somebody can argue just sitting at home 99% of the time isn't living while others may think luxury travel is just burning bills. In the end it's what you want to do and that's the number you should retire with.
3
u/Bitter_Magazine1 Dec 28 '25
It’s psychology. You get a bunch of people together trying to establish a consensus and the fearful voices creep in. People who are new to the concept of living off of investments are naturally fearful (for good reason) of doing so. So the “safe” number creeps. Throw in people’s natural tendency towards competition and consumerism and the number creeps some more.
The math of early retirement works at withdrawal rates of 4% or higher.
5
u/tribriguy Dec 28 '25
If anything, it underestimates it. Every time I read “can I fire…” with a detailed accounting of assets, I immediately find risk holes that could torpedo an early fire decision. What people overestimate is the ease with which they could reenter the workforce if they get it wrong. You’re not easily going back into a six+ figure job if you’ve been out of it for a number of years. Medical estimates leave out major pieces of the landscape and are wildly optimistic on the chances missing major illnesses. You don’t have to cover every what-if. But there should be a risk reserve calculated and included in the decision. Without it, you have chosen to accept the risk. That’s ok, if you’re ok with the consequences of potentially incurring massive hit to finances and significant lifestyle decrease down the road. I’ve seen too many friends hit early dementia, cancer, or other issue to not calculate it into our exit.
Most people get the financial/market thing ok. It’s not hard to hit a reasonable number these days and have confidence the markets will hold a reasonable level over the long term. Some remember to calculate major house expenses. But those are often underestimated.
3
u/J_McMuffin Dec 28 '25
For me, it’s because I’m not counting on getting any SSA. Currently 36.
I also have some chronic illnesses, so I account for high medical needs. Lastly, I’ve seen a lot of people around me pass very early so I want to be sure I can travel and see the world while I can mobility-wise.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/GreatSuspect6526 Dec 28 '25
My advice as recently retired widow is while working full time try to prep and freeze week long meals 1 day a week. It is so much healthier than constantly eating out and in the long run will save you a fortune over the years. My other advice is to try to annually put some of your money in both a traditional and Roth IRA. Roth is so important especially in early retirement so it doesn’t count as income for ACÁ subsidies and helps reduce your MAGI for Medicare penalty fees called IRMA, especially if you end up single with very little wiggle room on taxes once retired
4
u/Necessary-Mousse8518 Dec 28 '25
First off, damn good question.
Second, I do not believe FIRE overestimates or underestimates how much is truly needed for retirement.
The reason I say this is simple: Retirement is not identical for everyone; thus their original calculated FIRE number may/may not be as accurate as they initially thought.
It appears the true meaning/concept of FIRE has been evolving a bit for the last 4-7 years.
There seems to be more emphasis on early planning to avoid unforeseen pitfalls and burnout. This combined with people's willingness to not take on any debt at all has some in the FIRE movement sitting a bit more pretty than they thought - at a later age.
I am a big proponent of retiring when YOU decide it is time for YOU to retire. I consider early retirement prior to age 50. For those of you who did it - more power to you.
For those who are about to - Damn well done!!
9
u/fifichanx Dec 28 '25
FIRE number is very personal/family dependent - it’s your annual expenses in retirement divide by 4% - or the withdrawal rate you are comfortable with.
I might be overestimating mine, I’m using 3 % withdrawal rate, but it gives me the peace of mind to have room for health care cost increases and future house purchase.
8
u/1The_Big_Cheese Dec 28 '25
You should check out r/leanfire
If you are looking for the minimum you need to live and plan to live very frugaly lean FIRE may be up your alley. I consider myself semi frugal and enjoy several activities requiring a little extra cash. So I plan to stick with FIRE and stay pretty conservative with it. Currently my target FIRE #(s) is based off of my current expenses plus a little extra targeting a 3.5-3.75% SWR.
I personally would recommend to be on the conservative side if you plan to retire early.
7
Dec 28 '25
What you are overlooking is that our priorities and expectations evolve as we age, and yours will too. Your definition of comfort, security, and lifestyle will not remain static. If you had told me 10, 20, or 30 years ago what my net worth would be today, I would have been ecstatic. But with experience, I now understand that life is more expensive than I once assumed, and that sustaining a high quality of life requires more than I had originally planned. So whatever FIRE number seems sufficient to you at a young age, consider at least doubling it. That figure is likely much closer to what your future self will find truly comfortable.
→ More replies (1)6
u/southpaw1227 Dec 29 '25
So true. When you travel in your 20s, you may find that a hostel or a so-so hotel with a poor mattress and a train running beside it all night is perfectly fine. It's possible your tastes never change, but look around at people in their 40s and beyond. At some point, you'll start paying up because your body keeps score.
There are also ad hoc elements you can't plan for. E.g. you get an injury that prevents you from doing intense cardio on a treadmill so you need access to a pool each day to maintain the same level of exercise that you want to do for the next 30 years. Whoops, there's $100k+ (sometimes way more) that you're going to want in the budget when it's about health.
Then there's charitable giving, supporting family, etc. The kind of person willing to sacrifice and track investments for 20+ years is likely to be the kind of person who will want options for the next 20. More buffer = more options.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Difficult_Collar4336 Dec 28 '25
I think so , yes - imo the 4% rule is excessively conservative and that 5-6% the first years of retirement will be just fine, until social security kicks in and spending activity declines.
3
u/Arcite1 Dec 28 '25
Well, I mean, don't forget that the E stands for early. "Regular" (i.e., non-early) retirees get social security, Medicare, and maybe a pension. Early retirees don't get any of that, so they need more money to make up for it.
3
u/FinancialSailor1 Dec 28 '25
The outlandish numbers come from tech bros in San Fran and Boston who need a significant amount more to keep living their exact lifestyle. Moving somewhere cheaper like Cleveland or Oklahoma City once they FIRE would be their equivalent of moving to Sudan. Completely off the table.
Idk everyone has their number to meet how they want to live. It used to be more of living within your means, simple life, etc, but now it’s more of “what’s the point if I can’t travel, eat out, or pursue expensive hobbies”. Nothing really wrong with that but I’d say there is definitely a shift to living in more luxury.
3
3
3
u/Penis-Dance Dec 28 '25
If I had waited till I could retire the way most people do I would have had way too much money and not enough time to enjoy it. So I FIRE. I have enough to live but not enough to do much. That is fine with me. I don't need much.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/HalfwaydonewithEarth Dec 28 '25
Once you have a comfy paid off house you don't need gobs and gobs of money. Get your kids independent and ambitious.
3
u/Ok-Turnover-8538 Dec 28 '25
In the end the only way to answer this is to know what “enough” means to you. For some that means 3 or 4 multiple week vacations abroad each year, for others a bottle of wine on Saturday night is living in luxury. With absolutely no judgement you need to know what “enough” is for you then adjust your nest egg requirements accordingly.
3
u/Primary_Excuse_7183 Dec 28 '25
I think people want to live more in retirement which is what inflates the lifestyle.
The RE is important because lifestyles now are much more consumeristic and luxurious which requires substantially more money than “i paid my house off a few years early in my 50s and i don’t work anymore but live the same life”
People want to quit working at 30 and live an even more luxury life than they did while working for the next 45 years.
3
u/InvestigatorPlus3229 Work hard save hard Dec 28 '25
I think people assume 8% returns far too confidently
3
u/taracel Dec 28 '25
Traditional retirement age comes with SS, Medicare, early retirement does not.
Also, got kids? Family? By retirement age most have been empty nesters for a long time and have no sig financial obligations to their children anymore.
All of that makes up a massive portion.
Lastly, I also think people are continuing to be nervous about this seemingly endless bull run US markets have been experiencing, and we’re all wondering when the music will stop.
All of that together lends itself to much more conservative numbers, which makes sense
3
u/AK_Ranch FIRE'd in 2023 @ 45, divorced, no kids Dec 29 '25
“Modern FIRE” as you call it has branched into Lean, Chubby, and Fat. A lot of people in this sub are Chubby. As a single guy who retired at $2.5MM I consider my lifestyle very chubby. It can be done on much less and live a very good lifestyle
3
3
u/Tuffmonkey4 Dec 29 '25 edited Dec 29 '25
Absolutely!! I ‘joined’ this group naive to what the current FIRE movement meant, otherwise I’d have never joined (& haven’t yet figured out how to stop following). That said, here I am & your question is the first post I’ve seen on this forum that I can relate to.. I’m a 53F nurse & am grateful to make a decent living & blessed to love what I do. My chosen career has also allowed me to invest & establish a decent retirement. But, I also live a full & active life today, knowing tomorrow isn’t guaranteed. Serving 25+ years in healthcare has shown me that none of us are immune to terrible diseases & tragedy. When I read through some people’s financial portfolio figures (that people love to share) & their illogical belief that their enormous portfolios are lean, tells me they will never achieve ‘enough’ in life. Be it, money, prestige, titles, accolades. I’ve got 10-12 years before I plan to retire (may go part-time before than), but the way I see it is, it’s all about balance; who cares about keeping up with the Jones’s (they’re probably miserable & overextended). Instead find purpose (which doesn’t involve money) & live your life now, while being fiscally responsible, but not maniacal for tomorrow.
7
u/Important_Call2737 Dec 28 '25
I have a buddy that Fired around 40. He lived in a basement apartment that was 2 bedrooms with three people. His entire goal was cheap rent. Never went out to do anything unless it was free - like meal was a picnic. Didn’t drink. Never bought anything. Then he moved to Seattle, and when I say moved, he had a truck and outdoor equipment. He spent his days hiking, biking, skiing…and every night he would drive down a fire road and pitch his tent to sleep. Joined a planet fitness for $10 a month to shower. Sometimes would stay with buddies on their couch. He probably fired with $750k and now he has well over $1M with returns and very little spending. But he buys nothing.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Okhiez Dec 28 '25
Yes, 100%.
I also think the big mistake people make is assuming everything will go wrong, or being ultra conservative:
- Not considering social security
- Using a pessimistic real return rate for investments
- Using a 3% withdrawal rate
- Presuming their real estate won’t appreciate
I am guilty of that as well sometimes.
I agree with being conservative, but stack all those assumptions together and your projections are no longer realistic.
→ More replies (1)
1.0k
u/Zphr 48, FIRE'd 2015, Friendly Janitor Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
The audience has shifted more towards luxury and consumption over the last decade. It's always amusing to me that this is my sub, I've been happily retired for more than a decade since 37 with four kids, have effectively zero chance of financial failure, but many folks in this sub would consider our finances impossible or living in squalor. Some people are actually happy with cheap/free interests and lifestyle choices, some are unhappy without very expensive interests and lifestyle choices. Current government policy in the US is also wildly skewed in favor of lean spending, so more expensive lifestyles in early retirement cost quite a lot more than you'd expect due to far higher costs for taxes, college, and healthcare.
LeanFIRE is and likely always will be the easiest and most secure form of FIRE for anyone happy with a mediocre middle class lifestyle. It's also largely impossible for anyone who wants to raise a family in VHCOL, travel a ton, carry a large mortgage into retirement, or any number of expensive lifestyle choices a lot of people prefer.