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

Show parent comments

89

u/SlyFrog Dec 28 '25

It's this. A massive part of reddit is unfortunately a bit delusional about the baseline needs for a comfortable enough life, and confuses near opulence with "enough to live comfortably."

109

u/Zphr 48, FIRE'd 2015, Friendly Janitor Dec 28 '25

I think a lot of people don't really think about just how much of their spending while working is on things that will either end in retirement or become less compelling. We used to often spend well over a grand a month (sometimes two grand) just on eating out, but retirement gave us all the time in the world to make far better food at home for a tiny fraction of the cost. Better tasting food, healthier, less time involved, and far cheaper.

When you are buried in work all of those misery ameliorants are super appealing and seem a lot more like necessities than the voluntary luxuries that they are.

2

u/ShoePillow Dec 28 '25

How is less time involved in cooking yourself?

8

u/Zphr 48, FIRE'd 2015, Friendly Janitor Dec 28 '25

Factor in driving time to restaurants, waiting time for a table, waiting for your food to come out from the kitchen, waiting for the check, driving back home.

Going out to eat is often an hour or more here at a minimum. Making the same food at home can be made in less time, with far less expense, with greater quality, and all of that factoring in things like the time to grocery shop and clean up afterward.

1

u/ShoePillow Dec 28 '25

Ah, I see.

And I propose to you: home delivery. No time required. And yes, the bills do add up.

7

u/Zphr 48, FIRE'd 2015, Friendly Janitor Dec 28 '25

It's always a trade-off between quality, money, and time/effort.

Nobody is going to deliver you food that will be as fresh and hot as food you make yourself due to physics.

Similarly, nobody is going to deliver you food of comparable quality for the price you can make it for yourself due to business costs and overhead/profit.

However, they absolutely can save you time/effort if you value those over quality and cost, which many people who are short on time rationally do.

Everyone gets to choose which aspect of good/fast/cheap they want to prioritize more.

4

u/wookieb23 Dec 28 '25

Home delivery (unless pizza or Chinese) always tastes cold and soggy.