Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

I think it sounds like you have very little understanding of what quality of life means when you have children. You could maybe do it on your money, but it assumes that you will basically never do anything fun with your kids. I have 2 kids and we spend around $20k a year on food. They need clothing, shoes that fit, shampoo, birthday presents, school supplies. I need clothing, shoes that fit, shampoo, etc. If you want to send them to preschool, that is not free. You might not like the local (sort of free) public schools, and tuition is expensive. Transportation is expensive. Your supposedly sufficient income doesn't go as far as you think.

I think your plan sounds like a little boy libertarian fantasy, which sounds appropriate for a man who lived with his parents and didn't date so he could "be independent" and "retire early" when that actually means that you will be restricted in what you can do by your chosen lack of income. There are ways to work for a salary that don't involve feeling like "a slave" as you put it. Your fantasy of independence is just that - a fantasy.

[Anonymous]

I truly think the only people that can do FIRE are DINKs.

[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.

Wait. Both of you not working. At age 41/35? And still paying for college (even in-state)? Show me the math.

Your demented stricture of $1m in savings at age 33 is ruling out a huge number of women. No doctors no PhDs. Nobody who's had any sort of significantly costly or work-impairing health problem. Who wants to FIRE-parent, meaning deny their kids various normal things, limited to 2 kids, with an older dad, in a LCOL area. Who has no family in need of support. And who actually likes you enough to do this. Can't you see you are looking for a unicorn?

[Anonymous]

I am sincerely not trying to be rude but a woman who has 1m at 33 is going to view your plan as unambitious and unattractive 99% of the time. I think you're overstating how easy this will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that was my point. We save aggressive and maybe we could do it, but not have any extras. I can’t imagine living that way starting at 38.

[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.

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.

Wait. Both of you not working. At age 41/35? And still paying for college (even in-state)? Show me the math.

Your demented stricture of $1m in savings at age 33 is ruling out a huge number of women. No doctors no PhDs. Nobody who's had any sort of significantly costly or work-impairing health problem. Who wants to FIRE-parent, meaning deny their kids various normal things, limited to 2 kids, with an older dad, in a LCOL area. Who has no family in need of support. And who actually likes you enough to do this. Can't you see you are looking for a unicorn?

My husband could FIRE at 43 with a military pension but it would likely mean living in a terrible school district and we don't pay for college. I'm not willing to do that with my kids. We're not there yet but kids need a ton of support post college. Weddings, buying a house, grad school. Are you going to be old school and say, yeah post 18 you're cut off for life?

[Anonymous]

Ok. 1) Your math is wrong for both of you not working. Look up health insurance for a family of 4, unsubsidized. And remember, women tend to be more risk averse than men. That can mean they save more, but it also makes them unwilling to agree to a very low annual income. A woman aged 33 will have MANY friends with kids, and will have much better knowledge of the costs of IVF, raising kids, special needs, and all the risks that a family faces. You seem not so knowledgeable about that.

2) SAHMs don't want their husband underfoot 24/7! That sounds incredibly annoying. Major loss of autonomy, you will micromanage her.

3) People who do well as full-time parents are flexible, easygoing, and very interested in child development. Is that you, really really really? If you are not good at parenting but refuse to work, your wife will swiftly come to resent you.

4) A million-dollar woman with no career ambitions whatsoever, who's willing to walk away from her professional potential to SAHM on a tight budget in a LCOL forever? Really how many of those are there?

[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.

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.

Wait. Both of you not working. At age 41/35? And still paying for college (even in-state)? Show me the math.

Your demented stricture of $1m in savings at age 33 is ruling out a huge number of women. No doctors no PhDs. Nobody who's had any sort of significantly costly or work-impairing health problem. Who wants to FIRE-parent, meaning deny their kids various normal things, limited to 2 kids, with an older dad, in a LCOL area. Who has no family in need of support. And who actually likes you enough to do this. Can't you see you are looking for a unicorn?

Everyone is getting hung up on the $1 million savings at age 33. I do think that’s reasonable for someone with a professional job who values savings because, as I said, I have more than that saved at 33, while also having paid off a $500,000 condo and never having earned more than $150,000 per year (though I did live with my parents for several years and my expenses were zero during those years).

But even if she doesn’t have $1 million—for example, if she is significantly younger than 33 when we meet—once I have $2 million at age 38, it’s not that tough to add on another million assuming no major market crashes. I do 100% stocks, and we’d probably be able to add $100,000+ per year in contributions between the two of us. Assuming 10% growth with all stocks and $100,000 in new contributions per year, $2 million becomes $3 million in just three years—so even if she entered our marriage with zero savings, the plan is not that far off.

And regarding college, UMD in-state tuition is $11,000 per year, or $44,000 total per child. Sorry, but with one or two kids, that’s not going to derail anything. I would have them live at home for free unless they wanted to get a job to pay rent outside the house. “But what about summer camps?” Yes, we probably won’t be able to do a lot of those extras. I’m not a parent, so my thoughts on this could change, but I’m not a believer in the over-scheduled, activity-packed parenting style that is in vogue now. My life was much more laid-back as a child—I don’t think I suffered for it and would probably take a similar approach with my own kid(s). That’s actually kind of the whole point: there are always an endless number of things that you can spend money on and trade your life away to be able to pay for. I am actively choosing to live a simple life, which is totally doable on $3 million, even with a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sincerely not trying to be rude but a woman who has 1m at 33 is going to view your plan as unambitious and unattractive 99% of the time. I think you're overstating how easy this will be.

Why would this be the case for the majority of women? I’m a *man* who has over $1 million at age 33 (plus a condo), and I would never view a woman in a similar situation, who wanted to retire early, in a negative light—especially not as “unambitious,” given the amount of ambition and effort needed to get into that position in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sincerely not trying to be rude but a woman who has 1m at 33 is going to view your plan as unambitious and unattractive 99% of the time. I think you're overstating how easy this will be.

I was going to post this as well.

He needs to bring something to the table other than living with mommy.

[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.

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.

Wait. Both of you not working. At age 41/35? And still paying for college (even in-state)? Show me the math.

Your demented stricture of $1m in savings at age 33 is ruling out a huge number of women. No doctors no PhDs. Nobody who's had any sort of significantly costly or work-impairing health problem. Who wants to FIRE-parent, meaning deny their kids various normal things, limited to 2 kids, with an older dad, in a LCOL area. Who has no family in need of support. And who actually likes you enough to do this. Can't you see you are looking for a unicorn?

Everyone is getting hung up on the $1 million savings at age 33. I do think that’s reasonable for someone with a professional job who values savings because, as I said, I have more than that saved at 33, while also having paid off a $500,000 condo and never having earned more than $150,000 per year (though I did live with my parents for several years and my expenses were zero during those years).

But even if she doesn’t have $1 million—for example, if she is significantly younger than 33 when we meet—once I have $2 million at age 38, it’s not that tough to add on another million assuming no major market crashes. I do 100% stocks, and we’d probably be able to add $100,000+ per year in contributions between the two of us. Assuming 10% growth with all stocks and $100,000 in new contributions per year, $2 million becomes $3 million in just three years—so even if she entered our marriage with zero savings, the plan is not that far off.

And regarding college, UMD in-state tuition is $11,000 per year, or $44,000 total per child. Sorry, but with one or two kids, that’s not going to derail anything. I would have them live at home for free unless they wanted to get a job to pay rent outside the house. “But what about summer camps?” Yes, we probably won’t be able to do a lot of those extras. I’m not a parent, so my thoughts on this could change, but I’m not a believer in the over-scheduled, activity-packed parenting style that is in vogue now. My life was much more laid-back as a child—I don’t think I suffered for it and would probably take a similar approach with my own kid(s). That’s actually kind of the whole point: there are always an endless number of things that you can spend money on and trade your life away to be able to pay for. I am actively choosing to live a simple life, which is totally doable on $3 million, even with a family.

Hey you can always find a woman woth a trust fund too that has zero motivation to work. A guy can dream!

[Anonymous]

I do think you can FIRE at 38.

Nothing more attractive than a 38 year old without a job. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sincerely not trying to be rude but a woman who has 1m at 33 is going to view your plan as unambitious and unattractive 99% of the time. I think you're overstating how easy this will be.

Why would this be the case for the majority of women? I’m a *man* who has over $1 million at age 33 (plus a condo), and I would never view a woman in a similar situation, who wanted to retire early, in a negative light—especially not as “unambitious,” given the amount of ambition and effort needed to get into that position in the first place.

Hello, you're a man. Women don't value men that don't want to work. It's totally different standard.

[Anonymous]

You are really counting this hypothetical woman's money.

I'd say focus on the FIRE or having a family, you're not going to get both without compromises. It all sounds like a great plan until you get another person with opinions and goals involved, and then add kids with their own needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And regarding college, UMD in-state tuition is $11,000 per year, or $44,000 total per child. Sorry, but with one or two kids, that’s not going to derail anything. I would have them live at home for free unless they wanted to get a job to pay rent outside the house.

HAHAHAHA! Do you know how much it costs to feed my 18-year-old college student? It is not "free" to house him, either, or help him set up a wardrobe of adult clothes (on sale, from reasonably priced stores). He wouldn't be able to walk to UMD, or even ride his bike. So there's either hours and hours of public transportation (not "free," since he's spending lots of time) or a car, with all of its expenses (including parking at UMD).

I agree that you've chosen a very strict lifestyle, and yes, possibly you can find a potential spouse who is also an adherent. But I don't think you understand the toll that that lifestyle might have on kids who haven't chosen it for themselves, especially since it is a choice you are making.

I also thought the whole idea of wage slavery seems really immature. If you hate your job? Find a different one. Enter a new field. Find something to do with your time that brings you joy and gives back to the world. If you're lucky, you have a long life ahead of you. It seems like such a waste to be miserable and stingy for the first half, and then be shiftless and poor for the second half.