FIRE Discussion and Resources

[strichener]

53 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

We seem to have different definitions of the word retire. Ash Barty has stopped playing tennis. There is nothing she's said that states she's retired from working altogether, she might well go and set up a business of her own from here - would you deem her retired then? I just think you pointing to millionaire sportspeople and saying "look it's popular" is bit disingenuous. Anyone with £20 million in the bank is able to do what they like with their life and I don't think there is any parallels the average joe can take from it. 

And there is a high likelihood that she will be back playing tennis in a few years.  It is very common for sportspeople to "unretire" when they find they can't replace the good parts of their job or forget the reason they gave up in the first place.

 

 

 

 

[strichener]

5 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

She used the word retirement in her statement! 

But you seem to have this notion that FIRE is about stopping work early, and never doing anything ever again.

It can be, but that's very much a minority view. You have the choice to do anything you want, including starting a business or getting into playing cricket. Exactly what she has done.

It would have been a pretty weird statement for her to say she has retired from work altogether, but she's retired from the only career she has had.

As for what parallels to take, obviously most people are not millionaire athletes, but I think it's credit to someone who spent her youth getting to the pinnacle of her sport and is choosing to step back in her prime because she thinks it's best for her. It's courageous. And if you're 50 and want to retire from your long standing career to do something else - go for it! People half your age are doing it too.

Did she make any mention of which FIRE books she read or bloggers she followed?  Just interested in how you can square her actions with a philosophy (if that is the correct term) that she has made no reference to.

[Left Back]

22 minutes ago, strichener said:

And there is a high likelihood that she will be back playing tennis in a few years.  It is very common for sportspeople to "unretire" when they find they can't replace the good parts of their job or forget the reason they gave up in the first place.

 

 

 

 

heard on the radio this morning she's good at other sports as well.  A club golf champion and has also played cricket in the big bash.  seemed to think she'd be focusing on one of those to get her sporting fix.

[The Moonster]

39 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

She used the word retirement in her statement! 

But you seem to have this notion that FIRE is about stopping work early, and never doing anything ever again.

Yes, retired from tennis, not from working. 

How stupid of me to think that a philosophy which includes the term RETIRE EARLY involves stopping work earlier than the normally expected age. 

[Satoshi]

38 minutes ago, strichener said:

Did she make any mention of which FIRE books she read or bloggers she followed?  Just interested in how you can square her actions with a philosophy (if that is the correct term) that she has made no reference to.

Good point, she was probably spending every penny she made and will be winging it from now on.

Of course, even if she hadn't heard of FIRE it doesn't mean she isn't literally doing it.

6 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Yes, retired from tennis, not from working. 

How stupid of me to think that a philosophy which includes the term RETIRE EARLY involves stopping work earlier than the normally expected age. 

Think your two statements kinda contradict each other.

She has retired early.

People can retire early and go back to work (or do other things as they so desire). It's really all about choice.

I'm honestly struggling to see what your objection is.

 

[strichener]

7 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Good point, she was probably spending every penny she made and will be winging it from now on.

Of course, even if she hadn't heard of FIRE it doesn't mean she isn't literally doing it.

Think your two statements kinda contradict each other.

 

FIRE is about making lifestyle choices to maximise savings by increasing income or reducing expenses.  You are applying the definition in a very liberal manner.  I am going to retire at 57, I will make no changes in my lifestyle to do so which means that this isn't really what FIRE is.

[MrWorldwideJr]

What I'm getting from this thread is that all FIRE really means is 'save some money if you can', which obviously is good financial advice in a general sense but I don't really understand how someone can be uber evangelical about it or how it really counts as a philosophy that you can write books on. 

Maybe I'm missing something of course but if there is any more to it than that then I don't see how a woman who has never once referenced it can be co-opted into the 'movement' just because she happens to have been very succesful in her career and made a lot of money as a result. The reason Barty can retire early is because she won a ludicrous amount in prize money, not due to any financial philosophy she followed (beyond not immediately spending all her prize money I suppose, but as I said that doesn't really count as a philosophy). Her story isn't really applicable to the lives of normal people in any way

It strikes me that based on the Ashleigh Barty chat, FIRE can basically claim anybody who is remotely rich or has some money tucked away in a savings account and point to them and say 'SEE, THEY DID FIRE' even if they haven't ever heard of it in their lives.

Edited March 23, 2022 by MrWorldwideJr

[The Moonster]

29 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Think your two statements kinda contradict each other.

She has retired early.

People can retire early and go back to work (or do other things as they so desire). It's really all about choice.

I'm honestly struggling to see what your objection is.

 

If you can explain how the below paragraph applies to Ash Barty then I'll happily withdraw my objection. 

On 14/03/2022 at 10:02, Satoshi said:

FIRE stands for Financial Indepedence Retire Early and has gradually become more popular since the financial crash of 2008. To surmise, the idea is to restrict your lifestyle and aggressively save to be able to retire (or have the option to retire) years before the state pension age which is currently 68.

 

[Arch Stanton]

On 17/03/2022 at 11:44, scottsdad said:

I'm getting adverts for bras at the moment. Make of that what you will. 

You've been keeping abreast of developments on this thread. 

Alternatively you've been making a tit of yourself. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Arch Stanton

[beefybake]

7 hours ago, Leith Green said:

I worked a redundancy deal in 2017 and decided to take some time off (full disclosure, my dad was terminal so decided to take the time and help out etc). I was lucky, my redundancy and pension pot meant we were basically financially secure but I was only 49 so doing nothing wasnt ever an option - I could access my pension from 50, but didnt want to start taking money too early.

After my dad died in early 2018, I just farted about for another year - skiing, cycling, hillwalking with my son etc. We went to New Zealand for a month and I decided on the flight back that I was bored and needed something solid to do after 18 months. My wife has her own business, wfh, which pays the bills so there wasnt any real financial stress.

I started a small home improvement business (its beer money really, but good for fitness - cheaper than a gym membership) and get to meet a lot of good people - it means I  pick and choose jobs to suit what we are doing for fun - yesterday I went to Glencoe to ski, today going to an exhibition with my wife.

As you say in your final line - life is for living.

Tbf, none of those are in the same league as a really good fart.

Edited March 23, 2022 by beefybake

[Satoshi]

56 minutes ago, strichener said:

FIRE is about making lifestyle choices to maximise savings by increasing income or reducing expenses.  You are applying the definition in a very liberal manner.  I am going to retire at 57, I will make no changes in my lifestyle to do so which means that this isn't really what FIRE is.

AFAIK, there's no universally accepted definition and my attempt at it is just my understanding, I may be totally wrong.

If you think the above is FIRE great, if you don't then that's great too. For me, retiring at 57 is pretty impressive - you are more than welcome to join the club/cult.

You're just not allowed to leave and you can only date other FIRE members. And the slippers - never forget the slippers!

52 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

What I'm getting from this thread is that all FIRE really means is 'save some money if you can', which obviously is good financial advice in a general sense but I don't really understand how someone can be uber evangelical about it or how it really counts as a philosophy that you can write books on. 

Maybe I'm missing something of course but if there is any more to it than that then I don't see how a woman who has never once referenced it can be co-opted into the 'movement' just because she happens to have been very succesful in her career and made a lot of money as a result. The reason Barty can retire early is because she won a ludicrous amount in prize money, not due to any financial philosophy she followed (beyond not immediately spending all her prize money I suppose, but as I said that doesn't really count as a philosophy). Her story isn't really applicable to the lives of normal people in any way

It strikes me that based on the Ashleigh Barty chat, FIRE can basically claim anybody who is remotely rich or has some money tucked away in a savings account and point to them and say 'SEE, THEY DID FIRE' even if they haven't ever heard of it in their lives.

I'm not sure anyone is being uber evangelical about it, the ideas behind FIRE have existed long before the acronym or online communities.

And there's no co-opting her into anything, she has literally retired early because she is financially able to do so. How she got there, or even whether or not she has heard of FIRE isn't that relevant (at least in my view). And I highly doubt she would ever mention her financial situation or planning in an interview - why on earth would she? It's not a given that rich athletes will stay rich (as I mentioned before), but she is certainly confident to give up circa 10 years of additional prize money so she must be feeling pretty secure.

FIRE doesn't claim anyone, it's an idea - there's no centralised structure to it.

I mentioned it because it's an example of someone literally retiring early because they are financially able to do so. What this thread is all about.

33 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

If you can explain how the below paragraph applies to Ash Barty then I'll happily withdraw my objection. 

 

I guess the part where she saved her money to retire early.

Did she restrict her lifestyle? I don't know, maybe to a certain extent. Lots of athletes richer than her have gone broke so maybe she's been sensible with her money because she didn't necessarily want to be a tennis player until her mid 30s. But I have no idea of her personal financial situation, maybe she's already broke. I think it's very unlikely though, she can choose to retire in her prime because she has saved a big chunk of her earnings (lots of athletes don't).

[The Moonster]

4 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Did she restrict her lifestyle? I don't know.

I'm glad that's established. I'll leave you to it from here. 

[beefybake]

1 hour ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

What I'm getting from this thread is that all FIRE really means is 'save some money if you can', which obviously is good financial advice in a general sense but I don't really understand how someone can be uber evangelical about it or how it really counts as a philosophy that you can write books on. 

Maybe I'm missing something of course

 

I just think it's about recognising that life does, in fact, give us choices.  About which we can make decisions.

One of those, outside a life of ultra low income grinding poverty, is to choose how to spend your income.

1. Spend less than you earn.

2. Save.

3. Invest ( In stuff that will earn you money, otherwise it's a liability ).   Many people consider that a savings rate of 5 to 10% is good.

If you save and invest more than that, you increase your options for further along the age line.

For me, it's not preaching or some kind of semi religeous zealotry, it's just practical stuff. 

[Ross.]

9 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

I guess the part where she saved her money to retire early.

Did she restrict her lifestyle? I don't know, maybe to a certain extent. Lots of athletes richer than her have gone broke so maybe she's been sensible with her money because she didn't necessarily want to be a tennis player until her mid 30s. But I have no idea of her personal financial situation, maybe she's already broke. I think it's very unlikely though, she can choose to retire in her prime because she has saved a big chunk of her earnings (lots of athletes don't).

Did she save her money or not?

I think most people understand the concept of FIRE. Seems to me that many either can't afford to do the saving bit, and others just don't like the slightly evangelical preachy shite that makes an age old concept seem like something new and exciting.

[MrWorldwideJr]

4 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

I'm not sure anyone is being uber evangelical about it, the ideas behind FIRE have existed long before the acronym or online communities.

OK, can you tell us what the 'ideas' are? Because you've written paragraphs and paragraphs worth on this thread and yet all I've got out of it is 'try to save money if you can'.

I just assumed that if there is an acronym and an online community and books being written about it there must be more to it than that, some sort of method to follow or some advice on how to save. Yet from what you've said about Barty none of that matters, if you save money then you've done FIRE. Guess I'm just confused about what the point of a thread/online community is if there are no central ideas or processes to follow. What is there to discuss?

Obviously you won't see it this way but I would also say that seeing news of a very rich tennis player retiring and immediately thinking 'she must have done FIRE' seems pretty evangelical to me.

[beefybake]

1 minute ago, Ross. said:

Did she save her money or not?

I think most people understand the concept of FIRE. Seems to me that many either can't afford to do the saving bit, and others just don't like the slightly evangelical preachy shite that makes an age old concept seem like something new and exciting.

Wrong.

[MrWorldwideJr]

5 minutes ago, beefybake said:

I just think it's about recognising that life does, in fact, give us choices.  About which we can make decisions.

One of those, outside a life of ultra low income grinding poverty, is to choose how to spend your income.

1. Spend less than you earn.

2. Save.

3. Invest ( In stuff that will earn you money, otherwise it's a liability ).   Many people consider that a savings rate of 5 to 10% is good.

If you save and invest more than that, you increase your options for further along the age line.

For me, it's not preaching or some kind of semi religeous zealotry, it's just practical stuff. 

OK I think this is maybe where I'm having trouble because the whole tone of this thread is wildly preachy.

Take even the first couple of sentences of your reply, its got this tone of imparting hidden wisdom that I've missed, when really all you're saying is 'you can choose how to spend your money' which tbh is something I was already aware of, but again doesn't count as a financial philosophy.

Just feels to me like this whole thread is people taking pretty standard financial advice but delivering it in as patronising a manner as possible.

[SuperSaints1877]

I understand that Ash Barty retired from professional tennis. She achieved her ambitions in that field. I really don’t see how @Satoshi can say she is part of the FIRE movement. 

[Ross.]

11 minutes ago, beefybake said:

Wrong.

Wrong how?

Perhaps people don't immediately understand the acronym, but if you tell them that spending less than they earn and saving and investing the bit they don't spend will likely help them retire at a younger age, they will probably look at you like you are a fucking idiot for thinking you had to explain that concept to them.

[Satoshi]

40 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I'm glad that's established. I'll leave you to it from here. 

Oh right sorry, I didn't think anyone believed that I had unique insight into her finances. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

32 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Did she save her money or not?

I think most people understand the concept of FIRE. Seems to me that many either can't afford to do the saving bit, and others just don't like the slightly evangelical preachy shite that makes an age old concept seem like something new and exciting.

Preaching is in the eye of the beholder I guess. If you hate FIRE or this thread because it's too preachy - then fair enough.

32 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

OK, can you tell us what the 'ideas' are? Because you've written paragraphs and paragraphs worth on this thread and yet all I've got out of it is 'try to save money if you can'.

I just assumed that if there is an acronym and an online community and books being written about it there must be more to it than that, some sort of method to follow or some advice on how to save. Yet from what you've said about Barty none of that matters, if you save money then you've done FIRE. Guess I'm just confused about what the point of a thread/online community is if there are no central ideas or processes to follow. What is there to discuss?

Obviously you won't see it this way but I would also say that seeing news of a very rich tennis player retiring and immediately thinking 'she must have done FIRE' seems pretty evangelical to me.

The core concept is very simple, you can delve into more detail on it if you want (there's plenty of fairly uninteresting but useful taxation stuff). 

There is an online community about flat earth and furries, doesn't mean there is some unique intellectual concept behind either of these things, or some centralised authority.

It's just an idea. I think you are giving it far too much credit. And as for what my ideas are, pretty much what I've posted, but I'm no authority on anything beyond randomer on the internet.

And it wasn't the first thing I thought actually, but if you think I'm evangelical about it then - fair enough. 

22 minutes ago, MrWorldwideJr said:

OK I think this is maybe where I'm having trouble because the whole tone of this thread is wildly preachy.

Take even the first couple of sentences of your reply, its got this tone of imparting hidden wisdom that I've missed, when really all you're saying is 'you can choose how to spend your money' which tbh is something I was already aware of, but again doesn't count as a financial philosophy.

Just feels to me like this whole thread is people taking pretty standard financial advice but delivering it in as patronising a manner as possible.

If you're feeling patronised by it then don't bother reading it.

This stuff may be obvious to you but lots of people in the world are not financially literate (knowledgable about the benefits and practicalities of investments for example). Most of them don't particularly care, but some poeple do and I guess this thread is aimed at them.

For years the myth existed that active fund managers were worthwhile, one of the things that FIRE has done is help to publicise how this simply isn't the case. And whilst that may be obvious to you, it isn't obvious to everyone. 

And I'm far from an expert, just some randomner on the internet, there's been plenty posted on this thread that I didn't know. 

20 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

I understand that Ash Barty retired from professional tennis. She achieved her ambitions in that field. I really don’t see how @Satoshi can say she is part of the FIRE movement. 

I never said she was part of the FIRE movement, just that she decided to "follow FIRE", i.e. use her financial indepedence to retire early from her primary career.

Apologies if the wording was not clear, I did not think it would matter and I paid very little attention to it.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Satoshi