Even the people I knew from work who were laid off ("early retirement"; their financial plans altered significantly by no longer working) who didn't have 1M in net worth reported that they did just fine in retirement.
I did see another news article about this statement, tying it to what you'd need to amass to do nothing after age 30, so that's probably where the 5M came from. But it makes a great soundbite, huh?
Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome. - Booker T. Washington
Well Bae, you have been living like a pauperOriginally Posted by bae
Well, living on 35% of our income will not get us anywhere near the 3rd deviation of 5 mil. But our financial planner says I can retire at 60 and hubby at 65 (his target) with nothing to worry about because our current standard of living says we can reach age 100 and not be broke.
5 million might be right if you were 35 years old and going to keep your money under your mattress.
Most 'early' retirees are in their forties or fifties and have their money invested to give them income.
I know several that have quite a bit more then that. Like her, they tend to have homes in multiple area's of the country, and like her, they travel quite a bit. A lot of it comes down to lifestyle. One gal I am an acquaintance with, stayed at someone we both knows place on the coast, and fell in love so much she looked at what rent was there. She realized she couldn't afford to stay their very long (pretty sure she's just in the 1 million range), as rent was $30,000 a month.
Barring me finding the winning lottery ticket on the ground (since I don't play), the odds of me doing anything, anywhere close to that, is somewhere between zero and 0.1%.
I've watched about as much of her PBS programs that I can take, and she does offer some sound advice. But I think $5 mil is way out of touch with reality for average people. I was in a discussion the other day and looked up some SS figures. The SSA claims that 35% of retired married people over 65 and 45% of single retired people over 65 get all most all of their income from social security. I guess that's the other end of the scale and seems awfully low, but I retired early just after watching the financial meltdown. My savings took a giant hit so I lived pretty frugally for the first few years. It would not be too much of a stretch to say that I lived on about what social security would have been if I were getting SS payments. I'm certainly glad my financial situation has improved, but with house paid off it was not all that bad.
Read Mr. Money Mustache's last article and the comments after it on his forum. Has to do with this. Here is link: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/blog/
That was a decent article. I have thought the simple living movement was loosing any popularity it once had and it's good to see fresh revival. Maybe during the financial meltdown people were just glad to have a job. I still prefer the name simple living over FIRE, though maybe they are close enough that the difference is not that much.
5 WHAAT??? That's nutty. We don't all need 3 houses!
I have to say this whole FIRE guru thing is all getting a bit cultish. The math is fairly simple. The planning is fairly straightforward for most people. The required discipline can only come from within. And luck is the province of the gods. Ultimately whatever these people can impart is a tiny fraction at best of any individual’s formula for success.
All these various shamans accusing one another of heresy is becoming a little silly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote