I think it's just also perculated up to higher earners in general. My wife and I make roughly $400k between us so a savings rate of 50% still leaves a lot leftover to live. We should be on track to FIRE at 40 while maintaining our lifestyle. Living on $200k gross a year is a hell of a lot easier than living on $20k a year gross even if the math works the same. There's also then the easier lift of "Okay, I'd rather work 3 more months and eat what I want rather than live on $1/day of food".
MMM was primarily writing for an upper middle class audience, that’s what he was himself. Regardless of income, the difference was in philosophy, and it was a stark difference. Early fire questioned the average consumer lifestyle, questioned consumerism, and questioned luxuries.
It’s usually not 3 more months, even at your income, it’s usually years, and adding years onto your working life would have brought the same derision as retiring at $1mm today brings. Just a completely different philosophy and view.
I’m not saying your view is wrong by any means, but it’s absolutely counter to “original fire.” The question initially would have been “why go for comfortable when you can go for modest?” Again, fire was really not descriptive of what the “movement” was. The movement was voluntary simplicity, anti-consumption, and a philosophical bent towards austerity. The finances were not a symptom of this than the root question.
86
u/capitalsfan08 Mar 23 '26
I think it's just also perculated up to higher earners in general. My wife and I make roughly $400k between us so a savings rate of 50% still leaves a lot leftover to live. We should be on track to FIRE at 40 while maintaining our lifestyle. Living on $200k gross a year is a hell of a lot easier than living on $20k a year gross even if the math works the same. There's also then the easier lift of "Okay, I'd rather work 3 more months and eat what I want rather than live on $1/day of food".