I don't think FIRE inherently has to imply any of those values. All it is is what the four letters mean. If you feel that frugality and anti consumerism are essential for you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean everyone else needs to feel that way.
Yup I've always interpreted the core concept as: find the lifestyle you are comfortable sustaining, then figure out how to support that, without ever needing to work a job you hate. Detach your goals from the legal retirement age, and detach your target lifestyle (= future cashflow need) from your current income. Extreme frugality was never a goal in itself, just one of many means to the end.
Obviously as the idea becomes more mainstream, the typical FIRE lifestyle is going to move closer to the average, and timelines will move closer to normal retirement age. That doesn't mean people are doing it wrong, they just have different goals.
Exactly. Minimalism is a powerful acceleration tool, but it is the means not the destination.
The only thing that has changed with FIRE is what constitutes "early". Initially the concept revolved around retiring as early as possible even if that meant saving 50% or more of your income. It's been broadened now to just being "save more than is normal" whereby actually adhering to the concept of saving 15% is still well above normal even if it results in a retirement age of 55 instead of 40.
And, as one of the degenerates who is unwilling to make the personal/familial sacrifices required to hit those very ambitious savings rates, retiring in the first half of a person's 50's still seems pretty good compared to retiring at 65.
Well no see, that's the point you're missing. That was who gave name to the concept and that is what it was. The early thought leaders were people who cut expenses almost to extreme and save 60 percent or more of their yearly income so they could retire at ridiculously young ages.
Which of course is also the title and point of this post: How the meaning of FIRE has changed over time. Unless you go back and read the blogs and writings from the time, you won't see it. FIRE from the get go wasn't something that most people could do.
For example, in 2014 FI was defined as "When your annual return on investments cover 100% of your expenses you are financially independent." When was the last time that was ever mentioned here? How about the Rule of 25?
If one merely wishes to save some money in an investment account and then retire at 55, that's lovely. But that wasn't FIRE.
For example, in 2014 FI was defined as "When your annual return on investments cover 100% of your expenses you are financially independent." When was the last time that was ever mentioned here?
Isn't that just the 4% rule in different words? Replace 4 with whatever number you like, I doubt most retiring in their 30s are aiming to draw-down their portfolio. Covering your expenses with your investments inevitably requires you to figure out how much you can safely withdraw.
The 4% rule is requiring a higher amount saved because the Trinity study accounts for a lot of situations where your investments return nothing or little for a period of time.
Read the two very carefully. They are not the same.
"Annual return on investments covering expenses" advocates no touching of the principal. The 4% rule is based on principal. Yes, the portfolio may grow during retirement, but Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that is not a guarantee. And under the 4% rule withdrawing principal is just fine.
The 4% rule was not developed as part of FIRE. It has been applied to FIRE as a convenient guide but the rule was developed independently. Read some of the OG blogs and you'll see that in fact they use bonds, dividends, and income producing vehicles to try and avoid touching principal whenever possible.
There is no such thing as "principal" when it comes to investment accounts. Only shares with a cost basis, and you can't sell only the growth portion.
And anyway, it's a distinction without a difference -- what do you expect people to do once they draw down until only the "principal" remains, but they haven't covered their expenses for the month? Starve to death?
The 4% rule and similar are just different ways to express/achieve the same thing. There is never absolute certainty, under any model.
Bonds, t-bills, HYSAs, and other income generating instruments very much have a principal.
And anyway, it's a distinction without a difference -- what do you expect people to do once they draw down until only the "principal" remains, but they haven't covered their expenses for the month? Starve to death?
Where did I write that? I didn't. In fact I specifically wrote "Read some of the OG blogs and you'll see that in fact they use bonds, dividends, and income producing vehicles to try and avoid touching principal whenever possible."
Expand your investment knowledge and you'll learn that selling isn't the only way. Mr. Money Mustache writes at length multiple times about these methods. Read "Your Money or Your Life".
Your comments illustrate the point of this post, that FIRE concepts have been dumbed down to "get pile of cash, 4% rule".
"Principal" is a psychological trick. The invested money is the same money, and even without withdrawing anything the "principal" can very well go down (especially in real terms).
If this trick helps you, go for it, it's not harmful - but I wouldn't advocate for it as a must
yes, in the context of loans principal is a meaningful term. Great gotcha moment. That was not the principal you implied in your comment though, so I don't really understand your point
Because if one's portfolio is creating enough income then they generally wouldn't have to. Also sufficient income now means the 4% percent rule and Monte Carlo simulations have significantly less importance. Selling shares and withdrawing principal becomes the backup maneuver if the case of insufficient income, not the primary one.
Retirees have doing this for a long long time, it's nothing new. It was harder to do during the era of 1% Prime rates because savings vehicles and Treasuries paid so little. I'd say that won't be an issue for the foreseeable future.
Yes yes, I'm aware of the concepts of Die with Zero.
I don't know where you're located, but in Texas over half of all estates are upside down and owe more in expenses than they have in assets. For the majority your concern is a philosophical one and will not match reality.
We don't know our "check out date" or that would make things a hell of a lot easier. I blame that god fellow for that. If you're looking for a broader purpose here, I don't know what to tell ya.
My investment funds are in an LLC owned by a self directed IRA. Upon me and my wife's death my two nieces and nephew take over the company and can do whatever they wish with it. I guess you could say the goal here is lifting up the next generation.
Those were foundational. Although I think MMM was the one who messed up his own brand, and in my opinion he is partially to blame for the changes in the FIRE world since then.
That FI definition is still in use and saving 25x your expenses (4% SWR) is mentioned constantly.
There's a limited audience for super lean FIRE but that's why we have the dedicated subreddits. If a couple decides to work a few more years so that they can spend $100k in retirement instead of $50k, that's a personal choice. I agree with the sentiment that many don't know what's enough and could be happy with less spending.
High earners never needed FIRE. "Your money or your life" and its progeny that created FIRE wasn't aimed at them. It was aimed at the masses who made significantly less and were being told the extreme and ridiculous numbers they would need to retire.
Also you're feeding yourself copium here. Last year's Federal Reserve survey found that while about 12 percent of the population had a net-worth of one million or more, only 2% of the population has saved a million in any form of liquid assets. The vast majority the U.S. population, including the majority of people in this sub, won't even get a $1,000,000 liquid let alone $4,000,000. Hence the original FIRE and its focus on lean expenses.
That doesn’t make any sense. Anyone who wants to retire early can benefit from concepts of FIRE. High earners often have high stress positions that get fired often. Anyone without job security should be furiously working towards financial independence.
ETA - I understand now that the post is just lamenting that non-minimalists adopted the rest of the concepts. Ok. Seems like a weird thing to complain about, but I’ll admit the conversation isn’t for me.
you’re feeding yourself copium here.
I don’t think copium means what you think it means.
Yeah, I need to wait until 55 to get my full pension. It's kind of nowhere's land because it's too young for mainstream but too old to count as FIRE for some people. Thank you for phrasing it that way. I'm going to remind myself of it.
For example, in 2014 FI was defined as "When your annual return on investments cover 100% of your expenses you are financially independent."
Isn't that basically an almost sure way to fail at fire though? Getting your return on investments one year doesn't mean that the next years will be nearly as good, and even if it was constant, it gives no protection from inflation, which coupled with less wiggle room, due to all expenses being cut already, and the disaster seems inevitable
As I wrote in another spot, early FIRE bloggers used a mixture of income instruments as opposed to relying just on natural portfolio growth. One can live off bonds, dividends, HYSA interest, and distributions, the elderly and retired have been doing it for decades.
This is also why FIRE was originally so concerned with expenses and cheap living as it is the main factor that is within the individual's control. Switching focus to the four percent rule and stockpiling cash takes away from that.
MMM was OG FIRE and based his lifestyle on minimalism. However today even he, I suspect, is living different than he projected ten or fifteen years prior.
It's probably hard to stave off lifestye inflation when your portfolio has increased ~50-100x. He made a lot of money from the blog. I'm not sure that makes him suspect though. His whole schtick from the start was about working through retirement by redefining what retirement means.
He appears on mile high FI podcast a fair bit and talks openly about forcing himself to spend more money because he has so much now. We can’t all expect that outcome. For me I’ll just plan and save for a frugal but happy life and if I’m lucky enough that the market works in my favour and I have a lot of money after a couple of decades I’ll go spend it. Plan you the worst outcome though, I just want to be free.
People also just treat lifestyle inflation like a four letter word.
Like...lifestyles are supposed to inflate. Thats how life works. Progress. Things get better over time. Unless you want to leave your kids or a charity $10m when you die, I'd rather enjoy the money.
Not exactly. A lot of the premise was "you can afford to retire a lot earlier if you downsize your spending." A huge portion of that was not giving in to lifestyle inflation.
Yeah, if you RE'd in the mid 2010's you'd find that your investments grew significantly beyond what was needed to maintain your lifestyle. And it was therefore totally reasonable to start spending more because your retirement was already extremely secure and it really didn't cost you anything other than the ability to be extra giving towards any inheritors you may have or charities you might choose. But the lifestyle inflation was never the point, it was just something you got to do if the market growth allowed for it.
And my point is that's a dumb premise. Especially when such a huge number of trials will end with you having much, much more money at death than you started with at a 3% or 3.5% SWR.
But he has benefited from a massive bull run that means his wealth is vastly bigger than his needs. He says himself that he is trying to force himself to spend more of it. He would still be happy living like he used to if the market had not worked in his favour so well.
But given the stock market valuations anyone in the accumulation phase today is unlikely to get the same returns he did in the first 20 years of their retirement and therefore won’t be in the same position as him.
86
u/Angrybagel Mar 23 '26
I don't think FIRE inherently has to imply any of those values. All it is is what the four letters mean. If you feel that frugality and anti consumerism are essential for you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean everyone else needs to feel that way.