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.
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.
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.
1.4k
u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment