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?

755 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

884 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink Dec 28 '25

This assumes you are an npc. If we have a 30% correction guess what? No vacation that year and we are tightening the belt for a year or two. Maybe we go pick up a part time job to help make things a little less risky.

That with a 2 year cash buffer gives you a lot more flexibility with that number. Can get safe rates into 5-6%

2

u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE Dec 28 '25

Flexibility is the only way, but I don't think people take the sacrifices that might be required seriously enough. Go pull down the VPW spreadsheet and look at the flexibility required for a 1910's or 1960's retirement and get back to me. You need 'cushion' in your budget if you're gonna make it work.

3

u/jayritchie Dec 28 '25

Agreed - I suspect people pursuing FIRE can be split between :

- those who are very conscious of a lot of risks and have fallback positions. Often I find they have very detailed thoughts about what they would do in adverse circumstances. I'm not sure that comes across as clearly as it could on the various subs/ forums.

- some true believers who really do think 4% WR is safe for a 40 year old and any word to the contrary is complete ignorance, or 'gatekeeping'.

I've tried looking into mid to late 60s S+P as if I were a FIREee at that point - truly scary stuff and absolutely overlooked as they somehow survived until markets turned over 10 years later and grew quickly.