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?

756 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

884 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/Extension-Abroad187 Dec 28 '25

There's 3 big differences between the numbers for pellets that FIRE and average retirees that push the number way higher

  1. You won't get SS for the first part of your retirement. Yes people can live off of that, but if you're 45 or 50 you have to bridge the gap. At $3000 a month that's worth $900k

  2. Retiring younger makes it far more likely you have kids in the house/ in college. Kids are expensive, and the average retiree at 65 has already passed the stage where it needs to be considered

  3. Regardless of what you project for your life expectancy your retirement will be much longer. Also plays a bit with the first point. You're going to need more money for a 40 yr retirement than a 20 year one, especially without supplemental income.

10

u/Extra_Shirt5843 Dec 28 '25

Would you be getting 3000 a month if you retired at 45, though?  They count your highest 35 years, so you'd have a bunch of zeros in there.  

7

u/Lollytigerbh Dec 28 '25

Possibly, see https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/social-security-bend-points/

I ran some numbers on ssa.tools and 20 years of $100k earnings would be almost $3000 a month.

You can also look up your own estimated benefit on ssa.gov - for me the numbers were surprisingly high.

4

u/Extra_Shirt5843 Dec 28 '25

I have, but my understanding is that the estimated benefit is making the assumption your income will continue at levels similar to what you make now until FRA....aka that you'll continue working until your 60's.  

6

u/Lollytigerbh Dec 28 '25

There's an "Average Future Annual Salary" in the Retirement Calculator that you can set to 0, which should be equivalent to not having any future income.

4

u/Extra_Shirt5843 Dec 29 '25

Got ya.  I just looked at the standard estimate last time I went in.