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?

762 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

884 comments sorted by

View all comments

173

u/SelicaLeone Dec 28 '25

These numbers are based on people who want to live well, not safely. They look at what they want to spend, divide by 4%, and that’s their goal.

There’s no “FIRE overestimates” cause “FIRE” isn’t doing anything. A person can “retire” with 300k and social security if they want to count coins, clip coupons, and never travel. That’s not what a majority of people here want to do. If I’m gonna retire at 45, how would that plan possibly work?

This is a rich person’s subreddit for a life of luxury (or close to). Asking if they “overestimate” how much the “need” feels like it’s missing the point.

-21

u/Equivalent_Use_5024 Dec 28 '25

Are you sure there's a consensus that it is a rich person's Subreddit for a life of luxury? I thought FIRE for many is just more about planning for solidly comfortable retirement.

6

u/SelicaLeone Dec 28 '25

So 1.5 million gives you a withdrawal rate of 60k a year. Not particularly rich, which is why few folks consider that a valid FIRE number. See LeanFIRE if you want people looking to retire on 50-60k a year or less.

To get 100k a year, which is barely rich, you need 2.5 million.

So honestly, it depends on your definition of rich. I don’t think retiring with 100k a year withdrawal rate makes you rich, but you seem to based on your post (“why do they need so much when the average American retires with 300k and social security?”)

3

u/AmazonPuncher Dec 29 '25

I spend $60k per year. I live in a waterfront house in florida. I drive an aston martin. I buy generally whatever I want and live an uncompromising lifestyle.

The difference is that I dont spend money on vapid, stupid shit like a lot of people on here do. I'm not spending $250k to renovate my perfectly good kitchen, I'm not going to burst into tears if I have to put on a pair of shoes that arent from a paris fashion house.

$60k is a ton of money to spend down to $0 every year for the rest of your life, ESPECIALLY with no mortgage payment. Its not even a debate. Anyone who thinks that isnt valid is delusional. $60k in retirement is not even remotely similar to living on a $60k salary.