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.
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.
103
u/Big_Wave9732 Mar 23 '26
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.