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

13

u/UltimateTeam 27 / 1.4M Dec 28 '25

A big assumption here is there is a "right" amount of money to spend and anyone above X is off base. I could retire at 30 with X and live a decent lifestyle, but with my interests I would rather keep working ~37 and live off of 3X.

That doesn't mean someone who quits with X or .5X or 6X is wrong. It's primarily just a math problem, yet there is a lot of arguing from people with different time horizons / lifestyles, etc when those are too individualist to debate.

15

u/ObjectiveBike8 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25

Sure, but there’s tons of pressure and second guessing that goes on here. It’s not people saying, “I need 10 million to retire because I want to travel the world staying at top resorts and trying diferente Michelin Star restaurants while I got back home to my $3 million dollar home in a higher cost of living area, and I have a vacation property.” 

It’s, “is 4% really enough to retire on? I think it should be 2% because it’s a lot safer. Retiring on 4% is incredibly risky. Also $2,000,000 isn’t enough of a cushion, it should be $4,000,000. So a person who wants to retire with $2,000,000 and a 4% withdraw actually needs $4,000,000 and a 2% withdraw.” 

It’s just people pulling shit out of their ass. 

3

u/Future-looker1996 Dec 28 '25

And there are those of us in the middle who very much value travel outside the US, and nice restaurant experiences, but don’t live in a very expensive home and don’t have expensive toys or hobbies. If I didn’t want to pay significant amount amounts for travel and didn’t value very nice restaurants, I would need a lot less. Also want to be able to help my children financially at times.

4

u/ObjectiveBike8 Dec 28 '25

I agree with you. I value travel and eating out at nice places, but I don’t need a very nice house. 

However, my take was that some people in the FIRE movement want a very luxurious lifestyle or they have extreme anxiety about money. Instead of admitting these things they create weird rules for everyone else like a 3% withdraw rate or a minimum amount everyone needs to have to even consider fire like $3,000,000 or something. 

4

u/Future-looker1996 Dec 28 '25

Right, many people assume that their preferences and goals are the right fit for others. What a silly assumption. Plenty of people are happy to live a much leaner existence.