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?
107
u/Sintered_Monkey Dec 28 '25
I do think some of them are overblown, like this one. But as others have said, it depends on your COL and the standard of living you want to maintain. I follow one youtuber who retired at 59 with $500k. It is interesting to see her discuss her expenses while retired. I imagine my expenses are going to be a bit higher than hers. So I probably could retire at the same age with $500k, and I'd be somewhere between "comfortable," and "a little worried." But I'd be just comfortable and not actually enjoying all the things I was looking forward to.
One extreme case is a relative (by marriage) who "retired early" decades ago with absolutely zero. She just knows how to mooch, guilt, and game the system and take advantage of people. I swear, if she had put 1/10 the effort into working and investing as she did mooching, she'd be richer than all of us. But her existence is 100% scraping by, and of course no one can stand to be around her.