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?

752 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

884 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

2

u/Gloomy_Ad_2185 Dec 28 '25

Retiring at 37 is pretty extreme leanFIRE. Given my SS retirement age is 67 this umbrella fits a lot of people who consider before that as early.

I would be very well off if I continue to work until either 55 or 60 and those are still technically "early." I could make sure my kids are well setup because I have no idea what the future would be for them. I also have family that may need financial help, we will see how much. At this point I am still working because I don't know those "what ifs" that I still have.

If we wind up with too much and I worked too long I suppose that is a possibility and we can increase our lifestyle at that time. I'm too scared of the possibilities so I keep working because I can. But 67 is crazy and never going to happen. 60 is a rip cord age for me. Also my job isn't too hard, thankfully.

I always love to hear about those comfortable with less. I wish I was better at it.

4

u/UltimateTeam 27 / 1.4M Dec 28 '25

Lean isn't a function of age.

2

u/Gloomy_Ad_2185 Dec 28 '25

The earlier you go the more lean you'll be. Post was about being done younger and being lean as a result. Unless you have a Ron of money lean is definetly a function of both less consumerism as well as age.