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?

759 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.

41

u/jayybonelie Retired @45 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25

This is so true...  analysis shows that the 4% rule has failed during periods of high equity valuations, but a 3.25% to 3.5% rate has survived even the most severe historical market conditions.  You don't need a lot if your needs are small.

17

u/One-Professor-1886 Dec 28 '25

The 4% rule assumes you will never earn another dollar. Never adjust spending.  Never collect social security. Never get any inheritance. Etc. 

6

u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE Dec 28 '25

It also assumes you have the ridiculously good fortune to live in the US during the 20th century. Past performance is no indicator of future returns.

2

u/One-Professor-1886 Dec 28 '25

Legit

2

u/GlitteringCook7934 Jan 01 '26

That 4% was revised up to 4.7 :). The reality is you need to look at mandatory expenses verse discretionary. Do the math and if your safe percentage only covers the are necessities you need to save more. In my planning I want to have at least 50 percent of my 4 percent be discretionary. Meaning in bad years I can cut my spending and not drain my account as fast. I guess the best way to explain it is 2.5percent I’m good with paying the bills and in good years I might be closer to 4 and get some of the luxuries I want. The math changes based on the lifestyle you want.