Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

You CANNOT FIRE with young kids. There is no way to make that math work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

My dude, if you are looking for 33 year old woman who has $1m saved at that time, who is willing to marry a 38 year old and live out her days on a tight budget in a LCOL area, you are looking for a unicorn. Why on earth would she be interested in that life with you? If you only MEET her at 38, you're 39 at engagement, 40 at marriage, and 41 at first baby, best-case scenario. I know you don't want this to be true, but women who are 33 and want kids tend to look for age-peers, not Old Dads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

But you can't FIRE at 38 if you want kids FFS!

You need to re-run your numbers with realistic childcare and college expenses, and don't forget to account for expensive health problems and lower earnings due to living LCOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

A 30 year old woman won't have $1,000,000 not even close. If she's 35+ like you, then you'll be paying roughly 60K in IVF costs per kid. Maybe only one, but still. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 40K per year in daycare, 150K per year for college...like I said, good luck!

I don’t foresee more than one or two kids, and I will definitely make sure that we pay in-state tuition for them, even if I have to go back to work to pay for that. However, I don’t buy into the DCUM notion that there’s any value whatsoever in those $80,000/year SLACs. If they want to go expensive colleges that are actually worth it (e.g., Harvard), they’re going to have to take out loans.

And there’s no daycare because we won’t be working – that’s the whole point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

A 30 year old woman won't have $1,000,000 not even close. If she's 35+ like you, then you'll be paying roughly 60K in IVF costs per kid. Maybe only one, but still. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 40K per year in daycare, 150K per year for college...like I said, good luck!

I don’t foresee more than one or two kids, and I will definitely make sure that we pay in-state tuition for them, even if I have to go back to work to pay for that. However, I don’t buy into the DCUM notion that there’s any value whatsoever in those $80,000/year SLACs. If they want to go expensive colleges that are actually worth it (e.g., Harvard), they’re going to have to take out loans.

And there’s no daycare because we won’t be working – that’s the whole point.

Do you know how many SAHP can't wait to get the kids off to daycare? It's unrelenting. So no activities? No pre-K? No IVF? No special needs? No medical issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

But you can't FIRE at 38 if you want kids FFS!

You need to re-run your numbers with realistic childcare and college expenses, and don't forget to account for expensive health problems and lower earnings due to living LCOL.

Childcare costs will be zero as already mentioned. In-state tuition for one or two kids is not going to be that expensive, but as mentioned, I will go back to work if needed to pay for that.

I agree that the one wild card is health, as is always the case with any early retirement (even in one’s 50s). But I am in excellent health now and I’m not willing to waste my life at a boring job on the off-chance someone in my family has health problems young. If that does happen, I have no problem running a small business to earn money or taking a part-time job for health insurance.

IMO, the health risk of early retirement is overstated. And also, to me, it would be totally different working 40 hours a week on my own terms at a small business versus being a W-2 slave like I currently am.

[Anonymous]

OP you’re not hearing from people who have FIREd on a normal income because it’s very difficult to do if you want a family (and therefore rare). People are trying to tell you why but you keep fighting them on it.

I would try the FIRE subreddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

But you can't FIRE at 38 if you want kids FFS!

You need to re-run your numbers with realistic childcare and college expenses, and don't forget to account for expensive health problems and lower earnings due to living LCOL.

Childcare costs will be zero as already mentioned. In-state tuition for one or two kids is not going to be that expensive, but as mentioned, I will go back to work if needed to pay for that.

I agree that the one wild card is health, as is always the case with any early retirement (even in one’s 50s). But I am in excellent health now and I’m not willing to waste my life at a boring job on the off-chance someone in my family has health problems young. If that does happen, I have no problem running a small business to earn money or taking a part-time job for health insurance.

IMO, the health risk of early retirement is overstated. And also, to me, it would be totally different working 40 hours a week on my own terms at a small business versus being a W-2 slave like I currently am.

I'm a business owner. Running a business is not easier than being W2. Not even remotely. If you are running a business as a hobby, good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

I have never heard of FIRE - but did a google search and my husband and I think like that anyway.

We make normal incomes save aggressively (very aggressively) and had kids between 36-40z. We are 50 now. We also have rental properties that are paid off. Live in an amazing school district in a 1000 square foot house.

I love my kids! More than anything! But they are expensive. We are aiming for 57, but that seems like a stretch. We talk of moving to low cost of living area, but there are still things I want like travel. $60K would not be enough.

If you can do it good for you. How would you afford hobbies? Travel? Any entertainment for the rest of your life? Not sure I could do that.

I am thinking off top of head, at some point you’d need a new car, property taxes, health insurance, home repairs, new appliances- I hair don’t know how far $60K would go for very long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

But you can't FIRE at 38 if you want kids FFS!

You need to re-run your numbers with realistic childcare and college expenses, and don't forget to account for expensive health problems and lower earnings due to living LCOL.

Childcare costs will be zero as already mentioned. In-state tuition for one or two kids is not going to be that expensive, but as mentioned, I will go back to work if needed to pay for that.

I agree that the one wild card is health, as is always the case with any early retirement (even in one’s 50s). But I am in excellent health now and I’m not willing to waste my life at a boring job on the off-chance someone in my family has health problems young. If that does happen, I have no problem running a small business to earn money or taking a part-time job for health insurance.

IMO, the health risk of early retirement is overstated. And also, to me, it would be totally different working 40 hours a week on my own terms at a small business versus being a W-2 slave like I currently am.

I'm a business owner. Running a business is not easier than being W2. Not even remotely. If you are running a business as a hobby, good luck to you.

I’m sure that running a real business to support oneself is hard. I’m talking about earning an extra $50,000/year to supplement portfolio income in the event of higher than anticipated medical bills or to save for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

1) Bwahahhaa to the idea that your wife will have a million dollars. By what age are you expecting this? From a woman younger than you? Who takes time out of the workforce to bear children, and who do you think will be the primary parent with the more flexible job? It doesn't sound like you're intending to be that person.

2) I think plenty of 33 year old women would consider being 39 a liability. It means you'll be an old dad, less energetic, and be an old man before she is ready. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not a positive thing for you on the dating market. You're already limiting yourself to the tiny pool of women interested in FIRE parenting. And of those women you only want one with significant savings. And now you're cutting it down further with your off-putting age. Your dating pool is more like a teaspoon. You need to open your eyes to the cost of raising kids, how tiring it is, and how being a decent parent makes it hard to maximize earnings.

Ideally, I FIRE at 38 and then meet a woman who’s 33. No kids yet so she’s been able to save that whole time—it’s reasonable for her to have $1 million by then. I’m 33 now and have saved more than that on a normal salary—and could have substantially more had paying off my condo not been such a priority for me.

But you can't FIRE at 38 if you want kids FFS!

You need to re-run your numbers with realistic childcare and college expenses, and don't forget to account for expensive health problems and lower earnings due to living LCOL.

Childcare costs will be zero as already mentioned. In-state tuition for one or two kids is not going to be that expensive, but as mentioned, I will go back to work if needed to pay for that.

I agree that the one wild card is health, as is always the case with any early retirement (even in one’s 50s). But I am in excellent health now and I’m not willing to waste my life at a boring job on the off-chance someone in my family has health problems young. If that does happen, I have no problem running a small business to earn money or taking a part-time job for health insurance.

IMO, the health risk of early retirement is overstated. And also, to me, it would be totally different working 40 hours a week on my own terms at a small business versus being a W-2 slave like I currently am.

I'm a business owner. Running a business is not easier than being W2. Not even remotely. If you are running a business as a hobby, good luck to you.

I’m sure that running a real business to support oneself is hard. I’m talking about earning an extra $50,000/year to supplement portfolio income in the event of higher than anticipated medical bills or to save for college.

Ah, you think it's easy to make 50K/year as a business? Lol, okie dokie. You seem to have these fantasies about how everything outside of your current experience, including raising children is cheap and easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard of FIRE - but did a google search and my husband and I think like that anyway.

We make normal incomes save aggressively (very aggressively) and had kids between 36-40z. We are 50 now. We also have rental properties that are paid off. Live in an amazing school district in a 1000 square foot house.

I love my kids! More than anything! But they are expensive. We are aiming for 57, but that seems like a stretch. We talk of moving to low cost of living area, but there are still things I want like travel. $60K would not be enough.

If you can do it good for you. How would you afford hobbies? Travel? Any entertainment for the rest of your life? Not sure I could do that.

I am thinking off top of head, at some point you’d need a new car, property taxes, health insurance, home repairs, new appliances- I hair don’t know how far $60K would go for very long.

He wants to FIRE at 38 not in his 50s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:married, FIREd, but decided to work at a low stress/low resposibility job that permits me to be the mom I wanted to be. It can be done OP and is very worthwhile. Stay strong!

Does your spouse work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to figure out what kind of childhood you want your kids to have. HCOL or LCOL, and what are you willing to deny them for the sake of FIRE? You also need to understand that if one of your children has significant special needs, it will be really expensive and any notion of FIRE will vanish immediately. Instead it will be work until 70 to pay for therapies and adult care.

What is your FIRE number assuming your kids will need a 3br home, health insurance, and college? Are you willing to deny them all sports and activities? Are you willing to make them go in-state or to a much less good college just for FIRE? It can be hard to find a woman who's on board with that.

I would really question your assumption that there's no rush to have kids. Plenty of women don't want an older husband or don't want their kids to have an older dad, and that's what you're on track to be if you don't get serious about dating very soon. Yes late-30s men can still date, marry, and have kids, but it becomes more and more of a liability. Especially if they don't earn that much. You don't earn enough to make up for it.

Well, you didn’t answer the question, but you do raise some good points. My FIRE number is just for me, not for a family—my number is $2 million plus a paid-off $500,000 condo. That would provide $60,000 per year (3% withdrawal), which is fine for me.

Obviously, that would not be enough to support a family, But I assume that my future wife will probably have another million dollars and some home equity (after all, given how much I value savings, I don’t see how I could end up with a spouse that has a fundamentally different view in that regard).

So with $3 million and a paid-off house, I figure that’s plenty for a LCOL area. And I’m not opposed to working in the future if needed – I just don’t want it to be a necessity.

Lastly, I guess I just disagree with your assessment that, in a few years, I’ll be too old to date. I’ve never heard of a 33-year-old woman that wouldn’t date a 39-year-old man. In fact, that seems to be more common than not in my experience.

A 30 year old woman won't have $1,000,000 not even close. If she's 35+ like you, then you'll be paying roughly 60K in IVF costs per kid. Maybe only one, but still. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 40K per year in daycare, 150K per year for college...like I said, good luck!

I don’t foresee more than one or two kids, and I will definitely make sure that we pay in-state tuition for them, even if I have to go back to work to pay for that. However, I don’t buy into the DCUM notion that there’s any value whatsoever in those $80,000/year SLACs. If they want to go expensive colleges that are actually worth it (e.g., Harvard), they’re going to have to take out loans.

And there’s no daycare because we won’t be working – that’s the whole point.

Okay, I get the no daycare. But your kid will need preschool and preK for socialization, even part time. So that’s still probably $10k a year per kid for a year or two. Which is tricky if it falls the same time you need a new car or medical procedure or whatever.

Also, I didn’t have a million dollars at 33, but those who do won’t marry a man essentially making $66k a year. They marry true millionaires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:married, FIREd, but decided to work at a low stress/low resposibility job that permits me to be the mom I wanted to be. It can be done OP and is very worthwhile. Stay strong!

Does your spouse work?

If your spouse works then technically you haven't FIREd. You became a stay at home mom.