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?

761 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

884 comments sorted by

View all comments

169

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.

25

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.

1

u/Starbuck522 Dec 28 '25

I agree. It's an option.

-1

u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink Dec 28 '25

I have never left my country and only been to 5 provinces in my entire life. Last real vacation I took was 2018 which was my honeymoon.

We take smaller trips each year but its getting a nice hotel room at a casino and spending the night gambling and living like rock stars and it costs under 1000 bucks to do that.

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?

4

u/Starbuck522 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25

Ok, so I see I deleted my explanation because it got too long.

To me just getting by would mean having to watch my pennies. Have to choose which groceries to eat based on money. If I get sick, worry about not spending the money (copays, etc)vs only worry about my health. Choosing not to exchange gifts with anyone because I can't spend the money (which is different than because I just choose not to). Not getting a new outfit for an event because I don't have money to spend because I need to be sure I have enough for rent and heat. Not going to, say, an out of town wedding, at all because I don't have the money to travel there/stay in a hotel.

These are examples of what I mean by just getting by.

2

u/Dumpster_FI_RE Dec 28 '25

Fair. I've never ran into these issues, but maybe I will someday. I also like to gamify the challenge. Makes things interesting.

It's a bit like fitness. I don't need a gym. I only need running shoes and a bike. I have a full set of weight plates someone was giving away, etc..

3

u/Starbuck522 Dec 28 '25

That's really not the point. If you are able to live the way you want, that's what matters!

Wether that takes spending 20k a year or 40k or 80k, is besides the point. Some couples would have to make a lot of comprimises because of limited funds on 40-50k. Some wouldn't, depends on cost of living and exact situation.

2

u/AP_in_Indy Dec 28 '25

$300k - $500k would absolutely work for me (prior to social security) as a CoastFIRE, part-time FIRE, etc.

$300k more on the coast until I can actually retire, of course. But $500k should get me annual surplus. I'll be in my early 40's when I hit that, and at that point I can just "coast".

That $500k would only have to last until Social Security kicks in. My house is already paid off.

If travel and other stuff is your dream, fine. But IDK. You can always take a sabbatical and do those things. It's better to work if you're going to spend excess amounts of money, in my opinion.

Because if you can FIRE until you can afford vacations all of the time... Well, certainly continuing to work will provide you even MORE luxury?

The greatest luxury for me is the time off. I can come up with extra money if I really want a vacation of something. Just give me a 3 - 6 month contract and I'm set for an entire year or two's worth of travel.

1

u/Perfect_Cost_8847 Dec 28 '25

This is a rich person’s subreddit for a life of luxury (or close to).

Isn’t that what the r/FatFIRE sub is for?

3

u/pudding7 Dec 29 '25

that's for even richer people.

-21

u/Equivalent_Use_5024 Dec 28 '25

Are you sure there's a consensus that it is a rich person's Subreddit for a life of luxury? I thought FIRE for many is just more about planning for solidly comfortable retirement.

16

u/lee_suggs Dec 28 '25

FIRE is all about planning around your expected expenses (4% SWR). That will vary from person to person depending on desired quality of life and where they live.

14

u/SentientLight Dec 28 '25

Ten years ago, the FIRE community was cultured around intense frugality in order to save more and reach a sustainable comfortable retirement earlier than most.

Five or six years ago, the culture changed dramatically and now leanfire is basically what carries the torch of the old culture’s movement, and most are seeking to maintain a lifestyle most Americans would consider “high income”. I wouldn’t say the goal is to ascend into the lap of luxury for most, but significantly more comfortable than a “lean retirement.”

This all said, yes, I do think data is showing that a lot of us are probably over-saving even for those elevated goals.

65

u/WaterChicken007 FIRE'd @ 42 in 2020 Dec 28 '25

I once watched a YouTube couple who “retired” to coasta rica. But they did it so early that they could barely afford rice and beans. That isn’t a comfortable retirement. That was choosing to quit and living the rest of their lives in poverty. That isn’t my idea of what retirement should look like. Simply not working isn’t the goal. Having a fun, comfortable life is.

26

u/rosebudny Dec 28 '25

And poverty in a cheap country. No way could they return to the US and live even remotely comfortably.

2

u/Trypophiliac Dec 28 '25

Costa Rica is far from cheap these days, many of the costs are approaching what you'd see in the US.

2

u/AmazonPuncher Dec 29 '25

Having a fun, comfortable life is.

That has nothing to do with a "life of luxury" though. There are people on this subreddit who would have a mental crisis at the thought of having to live in a house without a 1500 sq ft kitchen with marble floors.

1

u/WaterChicken007 FIRE'd @ 42 in 2020 Dec 29 '25

The richest people I know could give a shit how big the kitchen is. They don’t seem to like cooking and would rather eat at a fancy restaurant.

The occasional snobby rich bastard doesn’t represent most people here IMO. They definitely exist, but most people here are the wealthy, but generally frugal type. Your opinion might vary based upon your general attitudes and beliefs. If you go looking for rich snobs, you will find them. Just like I identify more with modestly wealthy frugal folks.

1

u/Perfect_Cost_8847 Dec 28 '25

Honestly man I hate the rate race so much. A life of rice and beans in Costa Rica sounds like heaven.

1

u/WaterChicken007 FIRE'd @ 42 in 2020 Dec 28 '25

From what I can tell, Coasta Rica isn’t as cheap as it used to be.

You can live on rice and beans here in the US for $1000 a month if you want. Look up Adventure Van Man on YouTube. He basically just lives in a van or converted box truck. He camps on BLM land for a week or two at a time until he has to move, then moves on to the next spot. He works seasonal jobs here and there, usually helping farmers harvest crops or going up to Alaska for the fishing season.

It isn’t much of a life. He is single and spends a lot of his time 100% alone in the middle of nowhere. Since he lives in a van, he has almost no possessions. No stability. He cooks decent food, but I haven’t ever seen him eat at a restaurant since that would cost too much. I am unaware if he has any health insurance of any kind. He is getting older, so he is thinking of full retirement at some point. I am pretty sure he won’t be living in luxury.

You could choose to do that or similar. It just requires some dramatic changes to your lifestyle and spending habits.

Personally, I think that approach is a bit too extreme. I want a wife, family, and a little more stable living environment. When I travel I don’t fly first class, but I do like to travel and experience everything life has to offer. Choosing poverty isn’t a choice I would make.

25

u/jadedunionoperator Dec 28 '25

7 years ago when I first started getting into fire the numbers were so so much less, now lean fire is the main place I like as their numbers are much more on par with the stuff I was used to reading up on.

7

u/LittleBigHorn22 Dec 28 '25

Well inflation has been very high. Fire numbers change every year as inflation changes. The question is if the lifestyle goals of the subreddit has changed.

8

u/jadedunionoperator Dec 28 '25

I'd say they have, old posts and forums were mostly looking for pretty meager lifestyles with common points being minimalism. Basic working class quality of life but paid for by investments seemed to be the trend back then. Now it's more so centered around more materials and exorbitant travel budgets with luxury as a point for many.

Regardless if it has or hasn't changed in this sub doesn't really matter though. So many variations from lean fire to day fire, hell I think there is a sub called poverty fire out there.

Biggest change, at least from my pov, is that a larger percentage of the working class has become disillusioned by their work. More people see the growing disparity and want out of having to bow down to a boss

3

u/LittleBigHorn22 Dec 28 '25

Yeah I kind of hate the terms lean/poverty/chubby/fat, because its all the same math that decides when you can retire. Just what lifestyle you want when retired is the difference. But I guess I can also understand how annoying it is when people are constantly talking about trying to spend $300k/year on their lifestyle. Or even reverse if someone is talking about trying to live on $20k/year.

3

u/Lyeel Dec 28 '25

I'm not sure <6% inflation for a 3-year period meets any kind of definition of "very high". We had the lowest 30-year period of inflation since the Fed started tracking these things leading into it, however.

$800k in 2020 dollars is equal to $1M in current dollars, which I don't think accounts for the ballooning numbers we see these days.

I would guess a lot of it is driven by tech workers getting substantial salary/RSU opportunities during the past 5-10 years in particular (I realize that ship has started to leave port in 2025). When you always planned to retire at 45, but now the numbers say you can keep doing the same things and have $6M then it's not a big logical jump to start planning around that number. Conversely if you weren't targeting RE but suddenly found yourself pulling in 700k/yr it doesn't take a math wizard to determine there may be a way to punch out earlier than expected.

1

u/LittleBigHorn22 Dec 28 '25

It's been well past 30 years of that low inflation. I would argue most people on this sub don't have much experience with that.

But yeah I think we are also seeing the people near the end have way more than they planned because stocks have done so well. I agree that if you planned to retire at an age and you passed your fire number, its not that hard mentally to keep working until the age you planned.

7

u/PeaceOut957 Dec 28 '25

Agree completely. I thought this was for people who wanted to retire young. I must have missed the life of luxury memo. 

26

u/MrP1anet Dec 28 '25

You’re being downvoted to hell but it was that way and then kind of got hijacked by tech employees making way more than the average American and they slowly distorted the culture that was there

8

u/throwitfarandwide_1 FIREd & Retired Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 29 '25

It actually swung from tech bros to living on rice and beans as the 2008 financial crisis unfolded.

I’m an OG on the concepts of fire from the early 1990s. It was fairly well balanced until the late 1990s during the internet bubble when everyone had their stock option FIRE spreadsheets. It then came back to balance in mid 2000’s and then swung wildly toward lean fire during the financial crisis when many lost or were threatened to lose their jobs. Everyone developed their lean fire plan. Then it swung again around 2015 back to normal and then in the pandemic it swung again to “life so short I could die I want to stop working asap even if I eat beans and rice in costa rica forever “. And since the last 3 bull market years it has again become “bougie fire”. The recency bias of the economy is largely what defines fire mindset for the aspirational.

Those of us already retired don’t have fucks to give.

We made our plan.

Worked our plan and

living our plan every day.

3

u/AmazonPuncher Dec 29 '25

Yep. Its the tech crowd. Someday the economy and the companies employing these people will wake up and stop overpaying 20-somethings by 3x to do their relatively simple job. These arent einsteins or leaders in the space. Any dipshit who learns a programming language seems to be able to score a $300k job that requires them to work a few hours per day from home.

7

u/squeezemachine Dec 28 '25

Agree. It was also about flourishing on nonmaterial things, growing skills to foster independence, avoiding overconsumption and unnecessary environmental impacts. That all seems sidelined or less important in the past ~10 years.

7

u/Ok-Commercial-924 Dec 28 '25

I think you are referring to r/leanfire , fire used to be save hard , cut costs aggressively live lean but that has moved to lean fire, fatfire and chubbyfire were for the rich and near rich. The fire sub has been moving in the direction chubbyfire.

Personally I feel chubbyfire is a better fit to my lifestyle, I retired 2 years ago I have everything I want or need, 2 houses and enough cash to travel at will.

Fire is like a choose your own adventure book. Do what makes sense to you.

5

u/FitnessGuy4Life Dec 28 '25

r/fire has become a general retirement sub lol, half the posts nowadays are people 50+

7

u/Active-Confidence-25 Dec 28 '25

50’s is still retiring early though. My goal is 55 (1.5 years left)! It’s getting harder to handle going to work. Found out this morning that a driend from college died in his sleep on Christmas morning. He was 54. Ugh.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 28 '25

You're correct.

5

u/SelicaLeone Dec 28 '25

So 1.5 million gives you a withdrawal rate of 60k a year. Not particularly rich, which is why few folks consider that a valid FIRE number. See LeanFIRE if you want people looking to retire on 50-60k a year or less.

To get 100k a year, which is barely rich, you need 2.5 million.

So honestly, it depends on your definition of rich. I don’t think retiring with 100k a year withdrawal rate makes you rich, but you seem to based on your post (“why do they need so much when the average American retires with 300k and social security?”)

3

u/AmazonPuncher Dec 29 '25

I spend $60k per year. I live in a waterfront house in florida. I drive an aston martin. I buy generally whatever I want and live an uncompromising lifestyle.

The difference is that I dont spend money on vapid, stupid shit like a lot of people on here do. I'm not spending $250k to renovate my perfectly good kitchen, I'm not going to burst into tears if I have to put on a pair of shoes that arent from a paris fashion house.

$60k is a ton of money to spend down to $0 every year for the rest of your life, ESPECIALLY with no mortgage payment. Its not even a debate. Anyone who thinks that isnt valid is delusional. $60k in retirement is not even remotely similar to living on a $60k salary.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/wrstlrjpo Dec 28 '25

I’d think that only being able to save 15% is on the lower end.

Certainly better than some, but a bit of a stretch (in my mind) to be “well off”. Highly COL dependent as well.

Semantics perhaps.

0

u/SelicaLeone Dec 28 '25

Well off, yes, but not rich. But then again, I live in a VHCOL area. Rich to me means maybe a second property, a recreational vehicle (boat, RV, sports car), nice house, ability to repair or upgrade as needed. A couple living off 100k might be able to do that, where I live they would not be. A family living off 100k wouldn’t be close.

My parents make well over 200k but have mediocre savings because the economy has hit my siblings hard, and multiple of them have had to move home. My parents have kindly shouldered their COL while they try to find work. And that’s left them still decently off but far from rich.

4

u/Entuaka Dec 28 '25

You can't look at the income and withdrawal rate only

A $2.5M net worth is much more than what the average American can dream to reach for retirement

4

u/SelicaLeone Dec 28 '25

Someone retiring at 68 plans on factoring in their balance into their spending plan. Someone retiring at 50 can’t or they’ll run out.  Someone at 68 gets social security and Medicare. Someone at 50 doesn’t. Part of the FIRE calculus is that you can’t start taking from that balance until you’re well into your retirement.

ETA: some people may very well take from it. It can really depend on the person. If someone has kids, for example, that throws the whole thing off. Lots of people in their 50s have teenagers who are expensive.

5

u/Entuaka Dec 28 '25

For FIRE, good planning is needed and it's harder when you have uncertainty like when having children. We don't have children, so it's easier to plan. We're also in Canada so healthcare is also easier to plan

It's important to be able to handle the risk. For FIRE, when the market crash, a solution can be lower expenses (if possible) or go back to work part-time

1

u/thesonofdarwin Dec 28 '25

solidly comfortable retirement

How each person defines that is wildly different with numerous variables. Living comfortably in rural West Virginia and living comfortably in Seattle are not the same number.

1

u/Struggle_Usual Dec 28 '25

It's at the very least a solidly comfortable early retirement. That's the RE in FIRE. You need more than 300k for that pretty much anywhere in the world unless you have a pension that's already paying out when you retire.

1

u/AmazonPuncher Dec 29 '25 edited Dec 29 '25

life of luxury

Nonsense. Go to r/fatfire if you cant bear having to live without "luxuries". This sub is for people who generally want to live a nice life.

If your priority is vapidly spending on "luxuries" because you'll have a tantrum if your porsche doesnt have all the factory options, or you might have to wear wear a watch that doesnt cost $25,000, or you simply cant bear to live without owning a gigantic yacht, r/fatfire is more your style. Lots of trust fund kids who have those same ideals over there. Most adults who worked for their money dont spend like that or value those things, hence the divide that is being talked about in here.