Has anyone here on a normal income successfully FIREd?

[Anonymous]

Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

[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.

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.

An attractive 33 year old woman with $1m saved is likely fine dating a 38 year-old, but not one who only who's exited or is working on exiting the work force. Most women who care about money enough to save that much by 33 won't marry unless the marriage is financially advantageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP should find a woman within the FIRE movement. They’d have common values, goals, and interests.

I’m the one who wrote this. I think you’re all giving OP too much of a hard time. He’s told us about his ideal life. Why not let him try for it? FIRE people are obsessed with this retirement stuff, much like Bogleheads. They like to think about it a lot, talk about it a lot, and even have a healthy(ish) competition about it. My advice to zozo is to start trying to find a FIRE-minded woman now, make sure you’re compatible, and to build on your goals together. The older you get, the harder it is to meet someone of either gender, because the good ones get snapped up. Better to reset your expectations (if needed) while you’re younger. Then you won’t build up this ideal life but have no partner to share it with.

OP needs to realize that 1) his FIRE math is wrong, $90k is not enough; and 2) Women who want children on his FIRE timeline are few and far between. OP needs to start dating NOW, within the FIRE community, to really understand and accept this fact.

So if a woman's goal is to "retire" to becoming a SAHM (arguably a much harder than an office job, especially in the baby/toddler years), wouldn't she want to fulfill that goal by marrying a high earner? What does this guy have to offer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP should find a woman within the FIRE movement. They’d have common values, goals, and interests.

I’m the one who wrote this. I think you’re all giving OP too much of a hard time. He’s told us about his ideal life. Why not let him try for it? FIRE people are obsessed with this retirement stuff, much like Bogleheads. They like to think about it a lot, talk about it a lot, and even have a healthy(ish) competition about it. My advice to zozo is to start trying to find a FIRE-minded woman now, make sure you’re compatible, and to build on your goals together. The older you get, the harder it is to meet someone of either gender, because the good ones get snapped up. Better to reset your expectations (if needed) while you’re younger. Then you won’t build up this ideal life but have no partner to share it with.

OP needs to realize that 1) his FIRE math is wrong, $90k is not enough; and 2) Women who want children on his FIRE timeline are few and far between. OP needs to start dating NOW, within the FIRE community, to really understand and accept this fact.

So if a woman's goal is to "retire" to becoming a SAHM (arguably a much harder than an office job, especially in the baby/toddler years), wouldn't she want to fulfill that goal by marrying a high earner? What does this guy have to offer?

He can play the guitar and doesn't want to work anymore

[Anonymous]

Why do you need to save at all to retire early if you stay single and no kids?

I got married later in life but I has a rent stabilized NYC Apartment I could have lived in for life.

But why, pretty sad

[Anonymous]

I think the FIRE movement has such devoted followers because it’s so novel, and many people can’t imagine a different approach to life. Not everyone is ambitious; some people want just “enough” and then want to enjoy their lives. $60-90k is more than most people earn.

Also, FIRE people spend a lot of time taking care of things themselves (rather than outsourcing) and figuring out how to optimize their money and resources.

If I had the money and a partner and we agreed on a simplified approach to life, then why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were a single woman, I would not want to date a “retired” 35 yr old, I’d want someone working a decently paying job

Haha. OP, dating in the DC area is going to present several problems for you. Women in this area are typically strivers and look down upon guys who retire early or don't enjoy the rat race. They will either be extremely jealous of your situation or they will expect you to fully subsidize their early retirement. They will also be materialistic, and this is a lifestyle that you likely can't afford at 2.5 mil.

I think you really need to be open to different lifestyles that will likely be a better fit for you. You are single and have freedom, so now is the time. Have you thought about moving to another country? You can support a family easily on 40k in SE Asia or Latin America. Or you can stay single and have a blast. I recently retired at 50 and spend several months a year in South America and it's been amazing. I work part time when in the US just to stay busy and don't really date. It's just a big waste of time and I'd rather spend time with family and friends. You could also simply date women casually in the US. Be up front about your lifestyle, and if they try to change you, rinse and repeat. Remember that you are the one in control of your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

It's amazing you can't think of any other reason a child might be costly to raise. Try learning more about parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love my job. Sad for you!

Great, then do it for free!

[Anonymous]

If I stayed single and never had kids, I could retire on $2.5m. If you're comfortable with a 4% withdrawal rate, that's $100k per year. I would probably do some remote consulting work as well to provide a buffer and stay relevant in my field. I think it'd be tricky in a relationship, though. Most people in a partnership become resentful if one partner is carrying most of the load and the other one is recreating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

And sometimes people who are genuinely low-income are qualifying for reduced rates and subsidies that OP would not qualify for.

[Anonymous]

Is "most turn out fine" the goal that we have for our children? Sorry but a woman ambitious enough to meet OP's savings requirements has better things in mind for her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t ask this question on a rich parenting board, the parents here all think you’re downright abusive if you don’t spoil the crap out of your kids or that your kids will somehow become damaged if they have to go without.

Not true, there are many poor families who spend practically nothing outside the bare necessities on their children and most turn out fine. There’s no reason why you need to sacrifice FIRE just because you had 2 kids especially if you front loaded wealth building and already have 7 figures by early 30’s. Private school and travel soccer are a HUGE f***ing waste of money and half those kids end up as useless drug addict trust fund babies by their late 20’s anyway. Just send them to state school, make them take out a bit of student loans, play rec league soccer. They don’t need more.

Many of those families have parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. On the other hand, telling your kids that they can’t participate in activities and depriving them of opportunities and educational advantages simply so that you can quit working at 40 and sit around playing guitar is flat out selfish and makes you a bad parent.

Yes, the kids will not have an amazing and fulfilling life like snobby dcum types.

Correct, they will have a working class life, but without the opportunities for scholarship and subsidies that are available to the children of actual working class parents.

Most parents hope to provide their children with a better life than they had…then there are those like op who couldn’t care less.