Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

I've only heard of "FIRE" recently and perhaps we fit your definition of a couple who will soon meet your criteria.

I retired last year a couple of months before my 52nd birthday. I was making about $110k. My pensions provide ~$82k a year with a net of ~$62k. DW currently makes $117k/year and will retire soon with a similar pension (probably a little more due to the higher avg salary).

I have a 403b that I started maybe 25 or 30 years ago that for now is extra savings.

[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.

Okay, not everyone is 100% subsidized by their Mommy and Daddy. So stop being so proud of "your" savings. Some people would view that level of enmeshment as a red flag about you, and wonder what your parents' expectations are for providing and financing their eldercare, and whether they'll be intrusive grandparents or think they can use money to control you. Women are cautious about this and no amount of money can compensate for difficult or enmeshed in-laws.

It's hilarious that you think summer camp is what makes children expensive. Why don't you look up the cost of health insurance when it's not employer-provided and think about that. It's not any one cost of kids, it's all the costs together. Tons of little things and it adds up. Saying no to everything-- no to activities they most love, no to their interests and aspirations, no to their social life, is a recipe for a lonely, stunted, and resentful teen. You can't bring back the social norms of your childhood. Times have changed, period. Also, LCOL areas tend to have bad schools so if you're hoping for a state flagship you may need to supplement academically and with quality activities.

It's also bizarre that you're assuming uncomplicated pregnancies and healthy children. You haven't acknowledged any of the comments about the cost of children having special needs. Are you in denial about this, or just don't understand it?

You say very little about time value of money in your calculations. It's hard to give you any feedback when it's unclear which year's dollars you're talking about and what inflation assumptions you're applying. If you think in-state tuition isn't going to be higher 25 years from now...

[Anonymous]

The point is, OP, even if your math is right (which I doubt), the number of women who would sign on for this parenting and this lifestyle and a man your age is a very small percentage of the population. Women who want children tend not to FIRE this aggressively, if at all. Early-retired (aka unemployed) low-income men are not appealing to women-- you'll be hanging around all day wanting attention, and you don't make enough money for a fun travel lifestyle. So just sit at home and be on a tight budget in a blah area is your plan, make the kids be left out of everything they want to do, and rely on your wife for the social interaction and engagement that most people get from working. It's really unappealing! Women don't like this! Telling your family they can't have a nice house or travel, and telling your kids they can't do activities or go to a good college because you just don't wanna have a job, is not a recipe for family happiness.

It seems like you haven't had a lot of dating experience. Almost like for you, FIRE is an excuse to avoid dating, so you've constructed this incredibly improbable imaginable future wife instead. It's unlikely you'll be able to go straight from zero to successful marriage at 38 with no experience. Most people date and work on their relationship skills in preparation for marriage. It can be a good learning experience for both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"How will you buy food and a used car for your kid?" How much do you really think property taxes and groceries cost in a LCOL area?? I said I'm planning on a $3M portfolio that throws off $90K per year, on top of a paid-off house (i.e., no mortgage payment) - you don't think I can afford a used car when my kid goes to college?

As mentioned, even the biggest wild card - healthcare - should be reasonable. I currently pay around $200/month for an individual high-deductible plan. A similar family plan will obviously be more but won't break the bank. Even if I had to meet the $10K deductible every year--I basically never have to go to the doctor now, apart from routine physicals--I can comfortably pay for that out of my $90K budget. Something *really big* would have to arise for healthcare to be a real problem--and as I said, I'm not willing to throw away my life on the chance that some miniscule-probability event occurs, especially since I can always adjust as needed (start a small business, etc.).

And to the poster who said earning $50K in a business was very difficult, I'm currently earning $150K so something would be really wrong if I cannot figure out a way to earn a third of that--a mere $25/hour--when I have all the time in the world to try various ideas and no urgency related to bills.

[Anonymous]

I thought FIRE sounded so freeing until the realty of it set in - so much sacrifices when you’re young and healthy - denying yourself international trips, forgoing dating, good food….well I spent my 20s traveling and not saving aggressively and I’m making up for it now but wouldn’t trade those memories especially after a recent health setback (rare health event that impacted my mobility at 36). And so many people I’ve known approaching middle age (40) are getting cancer diagnosis, deadly car wrecks or heart attacks. I hope you’re living your life because you don’t know how long you’ve got left and in what shape you’ll be. So many FIRE people also get bored and depressed when they stop working, it’s not for everyone (or most people). And expecting a 33 yo to have 1 million in this economy isn’t realistic.

[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.

Because she doesn't want to live on a low budget just so you can putter around the house all day. That would annoy her. You're not ambitious if all you want to do is "save" (aka Mommy gave you in-kind) some money and then do nothing for the rest of your life.

How about you just find a job you enjoy, and then do it until you're 55 or so, and then your kids can have a nice childhood and not be socially isolated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"How will you buy food and a used car for your kid?" How much do you really think property taxes and groceries cost in a LCOL area?? I said I'm planning on a $3M portfolio that throws off $90K per year, on top of a paid-off house (i.e., no mortgage payment) - you don't think I can afford a used car when my kid goes to college?

As mentioned, even the biggest wild card - healthcare - should be reasonable. I currently pay around $200/month for an individual high-deductible plan. A similar family plan will obviously be more but won't break the bank. Even if I had to meet the $10K deductible every year--I basically never have to go to the doctor now, apart from routine physicals--I can comfortably pay for that out of my $90K budget. Something *really big* would have to arise for healthcare to be a real problem--and as I said, I'm not willing to throw away my life on the chance that some miniscule-probability event occurs, especially since I can always adjust as needed (start a small business, etc.).

And to the poster who said earning $50K in a business was very difficult, I'm currently earning $150K so something would be really wrong if I cannot figure out a way to earn a third of that--a mere $25/hour--when I have all the time in the world to try various ideas and no urgency related to bills.

It's not a miniscule probability event! If you have a wife and children, that's four bodies in which something can go wrong. It's more likely than not than you'll have a seriously costly event or issue for someone in your family in the next 20 years.

PS orthodontist

And it's bizarre that you think working a job is throwing your life away. Just, like, find a job you enjoy. Lots of people manage to do that. If you can't contemplate that ever being possible for you, that's super sad and indicates a mental health problem.

[Anonymous]

I recommend to you Frugal woods' comparison of costs in Boston vs Rural Vermont. The country is not as inexpensive as people think. Property taxes can be quite high, and you pay for a lot of things yourself that you wouldn't in a city. Really think about this. Plus travel to see family, that will eat up a lot of your LCOL savings.

I do think $90K a year is not that much after all the expenses of children. I guess if that's what you want, go for it, but it seems like a sad and boring life to me. Lots of people enjoy their work and find it meaningful and interesting. I'm sorry that hasn't been the case for you. But sitting around unemployed all day is going to be boring. Lots of people who retire early end up going back to work out of boredom. If you think your wife wants to provide 100% of your adult social interaction, think again.

[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.

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.

Okay, not everyone is 100% subsidized by their Mommy and Daddy. So stop being so proud of "your" savings. Some people would view that level of enmeshment as a red flag about you, and wonder what your parents' expectations are for providing and financing their eldercare, and whether they'll be intrusive grandparents or think they can use money to control you. Women are cautious about this and no amount of money can compensate for difficult or enmeshed in-laws.

It's hilarious that you think summer camp is what makes children expensive. Why don't you look up the cost of health insurance when it's not employer-provided and think about that. It's not any one cost of kids, it's all the costs together. Tons of little things and it adds up. Saying no to everything-- no to activities they most love, no to their interests and aspirations, no to their social life, is a recipe for a lonely, stunted, and resentful teen. You can't bring back the social norms of your childhood. Times have changed, period. Also, LCOL areas tend to have bad schools so if you're hoping for a state flagship you may need to supplement academically and with quality activities.

It's also bizarre that you're assuming uncomplicated pregnancies and healthy children. You haven't acknowledged any of the comments about the cost of children having special needs. Are you in denial about this, or just don't understand it?

You say very little about time value of money in your calculations. It's hard to give you any feedback when it's unclear which year's dollars you're talking about and what inflation assumptions you're applying. If you think in-state tuition isn't going to be higher 25 years from now...

These are actually good points and the best counter-argument I've heard, unlike everyone else trying to convince me that $3M is not a lot of money. I will need to really make sure my wife shares my vision. To the other point, I guess I still don't see women rejecting me because I don't have a job--there's a big difference between not having a job because you're shiftless and not having a job because you have a couple of million dollars in the bank. Trust-fund douchebags with no jobs don't seem to have trouble getting women to sleep with them. But I guess since several women have said it here, I need to be aware that that is a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Op, what is the rush and reason for this?

It's great to meet a certain goal, but will you regret you didn't enjoy or date as much when you were young and able to enjoy "youth"?
Work on a good balance now, not five year from now.

[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.

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.

Okay, not everyone is 100% subsidized by their Mommy and Daddy. So stop being so proud of "your" savings. Some people would view that level of enmeshment as a red flag about you, and wonder what your parents' expectations are for providing and financing their eldercare, and whether they'll be intrusive grandparents or think they can use money to control you. Women are cautious about this and no amount of money can compensate for difficult or enmeshed in-laws.

It's hilarious that you think summer camp is what makes children expensive. Why don't you look up the cost of health insurance when it's not employer-provided and think about that. It's not any one cost of kids, it's all the costs together. Tons of little things and it adds up. Saying no to everything-- no to activities they most love, no to their interests and aspirations, no to their social life, is a recipe for a lonely, stunted, and resentful teen. You can't bring back the social norms of your childhood. Times have changed, period. Also, LCOL areas tend to have bad schools so if you're hoping for a state flagship you may need to supplement academically and with quality activities.

It's also bizarre that you're assuming uncomplicated pregnancies and healthy children. You haven't acknowledged any of the comments about the cost of children having special needs. Are you in denial about this, or just don't understand it?

You say very little about time value of money in your calculations. It's hard to give you any feedback when it's unclear which year's dollars you're talking about and what inflation assumptions you're applying. If you think in-state tuition isn't going to be higher 25 years from now...

These are actually good points and the best counter-argument I've heard, unlike everyone else trying to convince me that $3M is not a lot of money. I will need to really make sure my wife shares my vision. To the other point, I guess I still don't see women rejecting me because I don't have a job--there's a big difference between not having a job because you're shiftless and not having a job because you have a couple of million dollars in the bank. Trust-fund douchebags with no jobs don't seem to have trouble getting women to sleep with them. But I guess since several women have said it here, I need to be aware that that is a possibility.

$3 million is not enough to act like a trust-fund douchebag! Especially if $1m of it is contributed by her! And nobody is trying to tell you you'll be sexless. They're trying to tell you it won't be attractive to a *wife of the caliber you're hoping for.* It's not enough money for a nice lifestyle.

What you'll have in common with shiftless men is you'll be hanging around the house all day. Annoying your wife. It doesn't matter how much money you have, women don't like that! Women like a man who gets up in the morning with a purpose. Some want a man with a prestigious job, an interesting job, a job that helps others, something that contributes good to the world, brings respect to the family and sets an example for the children.

Please do fill us in on how you'll loooove being a full-time parent of toddler(s). Or is the plan that you're retired and don't parent much, and your wife works full time for no pay as a SAHM with you bugging her all day?

[Anonymous]

No, $90K a year is not that much. Sorry.

Health and health insurance *4. And don't be thinking your youthful good health will last forever.
Other insurances.
Property taxes-- can be a lot in LCOL.
Other home costs, if you haven't lived LCOL/rural before you might be surprised how much things like your own septic system can cost.
Travel to family, since you're moving away from yours.
Two cars, then three or four, since LCOL means not much public transit.

Second-baby surprise twins!

[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.

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.

Okay, not everyone is 100% subsidized by their Mommy and Daddy. So stop being so proud of "your" savings. Some people would view that level of enmeshment as a red flag about you, and wonder what your parents' expectations are for providing and financing their eldercare, and whether they'll be intrusive grandparents or think they can use money to control you. Women are cautious about this and no amount of money can compensate for difficult or enmeshed in-laws.

It's hilarious that you think summer camp is what makes children expensive. Why don't you look up the cost of health insurance when it's not employer-provided and think about that. It's not any one cost of kids, it's all the costs together. Tons of little things and it adds up. Saying no to everything-- no to activities they most love, no to their interests and aspirations, no to their social life, is a recipe for a lonely, stunted, and resentful teen. You can't bring back the social norms of your childhood. Times have changed, period. Also, LCOL areas tend to have bad schools so if you're hoping for a state flagship you may need to supplement academically and with quality activities.

It's also bizarre that you're assuming uncomplicated pregnancies and healthy children. You haven't acknowledged any of the comments about the cost of children having special needs. Are you in denial about this, or just don't understand it?

You say very little about time value of money in your calculations. It's hard to give you any feedback when it's unclear which year's dollars you're talking about and what inflation assumptions you're applying. If you think in-state tuition isn't going to be higher 25 years from now...

These are actually good points and the best counter-argument I've heard, unlike everyone else trying to convince me that $3M is not a lot of money. I will need to really make sure my wife shares my vision. To the other point, I guess I still don't see women rejecting me because I don't have a job--there's a big difference between not having a job because you're shiftless and not having a job because you have a couple of million dollars in the bank. Trust-fund douchebags with no jobs don't seem to have trouble getting women to sleep with them. But I guess since several women have said it here, I need to be aware that that is a possibility.

I think the difference between you and a trust fund d-bag is that the trust fund d-bag can still provide a high standard of living even if he is seen as doing nothing (lazy, useless in women's eyes) so that negates the negative factor. If you're not able to do the same, unfortunately you will only have the negative factor without anything to balance it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Okay, not everyone is 100% subsidized by their Mommy and Daddy. So stop being so proud of "your" savings. Some people would view that level of enmeshment as a red flag about you, and wonder what your parents' expectations are for providing and financing their eldercare, and whether they'll be intrusive grandparents or think they can use money to control you. Women are cautious about this and no amount of money can compensate for difficult or enmeshed in-laws.

It's hilarious that you think summer camp is what makes children expensive. Why don't you look up the cost of health insurance when it's not employer-provided and think about that. It's not any one cost of kids, it's all the costs together. Tons of little things and it adds up. Saying no to everything-- no to activities they most love, no to their interests and aspirations, no to their social life, is a recipe for a lonely, stunted, and resentful teen. You can't bring back the social norms of your childhood. Times have changed, period. Also, LCOL areas tend to have bad schools so if you're hoping for a state flagship you may need to supplement academically and with quality activities.

It's also bizarre that you're assuming uncomplicated pregnancies and healthy children. You haven't acknowledged any of the comments about the cost of children having special needs. Are you in denial about this, or just don't understand it?

You say very little about time value of money in your calculations. It's hard to give you any feedback when it's unclear which year's dollars you're talking about and what inflation assumptions you're applying. If you think in-state tuition isn't going to be higher 25 years from now...

These are actually good points and the best counter-argument I've heard, unlike everyone else trying to convince me that $3M is not a lot of money. I will need to really make sure my wife shares my vision. To the other point, I guess I still don't see women rejecting me because I don't have a job--there's a big difference between not having a job because you're shiftless and not having a job because you have a couple of million dollars in the bank. Trust-fund douchebags with no jobs don't seem to have trouble getting women to sleep with them. But I guess since several women have said it here, I need to be aware that that is a possibility.

I think the difference between you and a trust fund d-bag is that the trust fund d-bag can still provide a high standard of living even if he is seen as doing nothing (lazy, useless in women's eyes) so that negates the negative factor. If you're not able to do the same, unfortunately you will only have the negative factor without anything to balance it out.

And they're not expecting the woman to ante up 1/3 of the trust!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"How will you buy food and a used car for your kid?" How much do you really think property taxes and groceries cost in a LCOL area?? I said I'm planning on a $3M portfolio that throws off $90K per year, on top of a paid-off house (i.e., no mortgage payment) - you don't think I can afford a used car when my kid goes to college?

As mentioned, even the biggest wild card - healthcare - should be reasonable. I currently pay around $200/month for an individual high-deductible plan. A similar family plan will obviously be more but won't break the bank. Even if I had to meet the $10K deductible every year--I basically never have to go to the doctor now, apart from routine physicals--I can comfortably pay for that out of my $90K budget. Something *really big* would have to arise for healthcare to be a real problem--and as I said, I'm not willing to throw away my life on the chance that some miniscule-probability event occurs, especially since I can always adjust as needed (start a small business, etc.).

And to the poster who said earning $50K in a business was very difficult, I'm currently earning $150K so something would be really wrong if I cannot figure out a way to earn a third of that--a mere $25/hour--when I have all the time in the world to try various ideas and no urgency related to bills.

It's not a miniscule probability event! If you have a wife and children, that's four bodies in which something can go wrong. It's more likely than not than you'll have a seriously costly event or issue for someone in your family in the next 20 years.

PS orthodontist

And it's bizarre that you think working a job is throwing your life away. Just, like, find a job you enjoy. Lots of people manage to do that. If you can't contemplate that ever being possible for you, that's super sad and indicates a mental health problem.

No, jobs suck – sorry, I’m not budging on that one. As far as jobs go, mine is decent enough. I am now 100% work-from-home, which has dramatically increased my enjoyment of the job. But it’s still boring nonsense. No one growing up dreams of Zoom calls and corporate networking BS – they settle for it because there are far worse things than getting paid $150,000 to send a few emails a day.

I want to hike and play the guitar and spend time with my loved ones.