How is the FIRE movement doing?

[jennypenny]

Amongst our age group there is a lot less talk about retirement in general. Post-covid, some people can work from home most of the time and are happy to collect a pay check as long as they can work in pajamas. Others are happy to be back in a social setting post-covid, even if it's work. I was surprised at how many people missed their work settings.

Amongst my kids peers (20-somethings), none of them even talk about retirement. They think it's a concept that will die out with the Boomers, like pensions and social security. Lots of reasons for that ... Covid showed money can only get you so far, gig jobs and self-employment don't lend themselves to structured retirements, life is boring when you aren't 'doing something meaningful,' etc. Even my kids, who were raised on ERE principles, are entirely focused on developing systems* that support them today with no thought given to putting all their eggs in one [financial] basket. To my kids and their informed friends, FI means having money for contingencies (FU money). It does not mean living off of a nest egg.

I can't help but think that there's a group ... threepercenters? fivepercenters? ... that all talk to each other and appear on each other's podcasts discussing their lifestyles, health hacks, and financial topics, but who are completely removed from the reality of everyone else. The gap has widened to the point where their advice just doesn't apply. The other 95% have already started deindustrializing, willingly or not. My kids mock influencers who live in pretty minimalist homes, making prepackaged green smoothies in $1000 blenders, talking about niche supplements and cold plunges, then spending the rest of the day creating content. It's as unsustainable as traditional suburban lifestyles.


* Systems that don't require much money -- two work in culinary where they get free meals and food to take home on toss day, one is looking for a job post-grad school that provides housing and transportation, etc. Money is a small piece of the puzzle to them and their friends. It's like they assume they'll never have enough money so they aren't focused on having/earning more (wasted effort); they are focused on getting what they want/need in other ways. It's odd to see young people living like my grandparents did, providing for most of their needs through hard work and socially-based systems, and putting what little extra money they have into gov't bonds and CDs.

[Smashter]

Wow, I must be in such a tech social bubble. What I see when I look around is nothing like what JP sees. The young people I know still seem to want prestigious tech jobs so they can make as much money as possible so they can purchase the fanciest things possible.

My small tech company has a small Slack channel devoted to personal finance. I think the idea was for people to share tips and tactics, but it looks like everyone is doing the traditional FIRE thing and there's not much to talk about. People put their savings into VTSAX or a roboadvisor and that's about it. One guy keeps trying to talk about individual stocks he's interested in, or Warren Buffet books he's reading, but he doesn't get much engagement.

What's interesting is that even my coworkers in Europe seem to put most of their money into large US index funds.

[AnalyticalEngine]

I can't help but think that there's a group ... threepercenters? fivepercenters? ... that all talk to each other and appear on each other's podcasts discussing their lifestyles, health hacks, and financial topics, but who are completely removed from the reality of everyone else. The gap has widened to the point where their advice just doesn't apply.

There are three groups I frequently hang out with, and I find there is minimal communication and understanding between the groups. They are: the wealthy, OG post-FIRE crowd in Longmont, committed tech careerists, and 1st generation Eastern European immigrants who barely speak any English and their 2nd generation children aged 16-22. Of these groups, the OG FIRE post-FIRE crowd is probably the most oblivious because wealth + no job + community of similar people pretty much buys you out of a lot of the common social reality and its problems.

I actually think the fact money can buy you out of problems combined with WFH making a lot of high paying jobs a whole lot easier than they used to be has made the salaryman niche a lot more appealing than it used to be, which has impacted the RE part of the FIRE community. That's probably why you see FI and Ramit Sethi being so popular now. If you happen to be fortunate enough to make it as a WFH software professional where you only do a few hours of real work a day, all that money can buy you freedom from an awful lot of hassle for minimal work. That is, selling a few hours of your soul to the company in order to avoid dealing with roommate problems is appealing in a way the endless commute plus office politicking of the pre-COVID era was not. Because there's a certain point where roommate politics and office politics are the same experience.

Obviously, the 1st generation immigrants + their kids are dealing with a giant pile of problems that OG FIRE/careerists remain completely unaware of. Interestingly, I see a lot of 2nd generation immigrant kids trying like hell to escape that world (the deindustrialized networking hell where you have to conform to certain social expectations and hustle like hell to get by) for the salaryman dream while at the same time, more and more Anglo-American kids fall into it. The middle class, Anglo-American kids usually have a much worse experience of it because they normally come from a place of higher expectations and less actual experience dealing with how to live in that kind of world.

[7Wannabe5]

+1 to what jennypenny said also applying to my early 30s adult kids, my 20-something nieces/nephews and their peer groups, and especially the disadvantaged kids I am tutoring in rust-belt wasteland. In fact, when I hear/read 3-5 percenter POV, my thought is "But, nobody cares what you think.", and not in a snarky way, just in a you-are-not-living-in-dominant/growing-reality way. ""Let them drink green smoothies" is increasingly not going to fly. Young people who are already out in the trenches of the meta-crisis do not care about advice offered by affluent old (or old behaving) people who are focused on extreme individualist survival-at-the-margin practices, such as having enough money/fitness to live to 95 rather than 87.

[Western Red Cedar]

I know more people doing the nomadic thing all the time. I think work from home and geo arbitrage has made it easier to back out of full time paid employment and into something else.

This is what I've heard as well, but it might just reflect the types of podcasts and content I'm drawn to.

Amongst my kids peers (20-somethings), none of them even talk about retirement. They think it's a concept that will die out with the Boomers, like pensions and social security.

Is it possible this is simply a reflection of age? This was a common perspective among my social circle when I was in my twenties, but things changed once we moved into our thirties. The dynamic was the same for some of my Gen X siblings as well.

------

I suppose it is also worth mentioning that I've met less than 5 people IRL over the last ten years who had actually heard of FIRE, and I'm not sure any were seriously pursuing it. While it isn't a topic I'd immediately jump into, I have a pretty good sense of of where someone is at based on comments they might make about the economy, spending, investments, travel rewards, etc...

I'd likely have a different experience if I lived in a larger metro area or a tech hub. I suppose it is still a niche topic, even if I have seen it creeping more into mainstream conversations.

[jacob]

Also +1 to distinguishing between sample and population. FIRE has never been popular enough to be a subject of common conversation or pursuit in the general population. It was always a small sample that eventually grew to an estimated 0.5% of the population. If there's a generational shift, it would manifest in an absence of younger people from the movement. I don't see that in terms of followers, at least not here on this forum.

In terms of leaders, when I was blogging, I was 32-36 years old. I believe MMM is a year older than me(?). We're now close to 50 so obviously not easily relatable to the younger generations in their 20s and 30s. Are there really no new significant voices for FIRE younger than 40 anymore?

[Western Red Cedar]

Are there really no new significant voices for FIRE younger than 40 anymore?

Kristy and Bryce from Millenial Revolution are the first that come to mind. They are probably in their early to mid-30's, retired in their 20's, have been blogging for a long time and published a book. They are one of the few who really like to promote the idea and haven't shied away from the FIRE label.* There are a handful of others that put out content for a few years (maybe still are) but moved on to something else.

I get the sense that other younger writers and content creators aren't focused exclusively on FIRE, or don't stick around long enough to stand out in the massive amount of content.

*ETA - I've noticed some writers that started writing about FIRE 10+ years ago have mentioned they don't necessarily like to be confined to that label. I'm thinking of people like Paula Pant, Jillian Johnsrud or Elizabeth Thames, who are all older millennials or cuspers.

[suomalainen]

Agree that it's hard to break into a saturated market. +1 to @Dutchgirl's idea that the cycle may take 20 - 30 years to reset. As generations react to the immediately prior generation, the swing back takes a full generation.

[7Wannabe5]

Five minutes of internet search reveals that Gen Z is rejecting FIRE trend in favor of “soft savings” trend.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Maybe the real analysis we need is not an overview of Gen Z overall--since even normal FIRE has never spread past maybe 3% of the population at most--to a closer look at the members of Gen Z who would have pursued FIRE if they were born earlier. So is it the case that Gen Z is just too young for this, the economic conditions no longer support it, or is there a full generational shift that has made FIRE and "20th century" frugality obsolete?

[Jin+Guice]

Interesting.

A lot of the reasons offered as to why FIRE is failing could be inverted to be reasons why FIRE would be successful.

It seems like the general sentiment is that there is a lot more emphasis on freedom-from work and investing than freedom-to do whatever you want and frugality.

ERE/FIRE was initially set up to thrive in a world of declining resources, so wealth transfers should only increase its usefulness, if not its popularity. Whether or not it's popular, living at 3-7x the economic efficiency of "normal" will always be a better strategy.

I'm personally unsympathetic/ not that interested in people who don't see why consumerism as a way of life is undesirable. I don't mind explaining in different ways why I think that is, and the vasty improved life that is immediately available as one sheds consumerist beliefs. I don't mind discussing the shared problems we all face, having been raised to be consumerists and living in a consumerist world. I don't mind discussing the role and necessity of consuming some things or the continued to desire for luxury and how it relate to an anti-consumerist lifestyle. But if someone hears these arguments and still wants to be a consumerist and/ or wants to use the tools of FIRE/ ERE to continue to live a consumerist lifestyle, than I don't think they and I are interested in the same thing.

That being said, I don't think collecting easy money by leveraging an advantageous labor market is anti-ERE or anti-FIRE. I don't see it as that much different than leveraging an advantageous financial market. Personally, my job got a lot more tolerable/ lucrative after covid and as a result I work more. The magic of frugality is that it increases the value of money while decreasing the need for it.

If you actually WFH for an actual 20 hours a week for what was previously a 40+ hour a week paycheck, congrats, you are achieving the work portion of semi-ERE. If you aren't doing the frugality portion, then you're not really doing it, as frugality dominates everything else.

I think the problem frugality has always faced is it removes the way that we are trained to signal social status, which humans are very attuned to. A possible way to combat this is by creating a new measure of social status. Personally I think needing to signal social status beyond one's immediate social group will always induce anxiety. This type of status will always be "hackable" as some group of people will realize that its only value is in signaling status, which will always somewhat depart from material reality and always be manipulatable by those who are more equipped to resist/ ignore/ change it.

I think the problem with being hardcore anti-work is that work provides a lot more than a paycheck, even if the common myth persists that the main reason we work is a paycheck/ financial necessity.

I recently befriended an instafluencer but she's failed to serve me even a single smoothie.

[jacob]

Agree that it's hard to break into a saturated market. +1 to @Dutchgirl's idea that the cycle may take 20 - 30 years to reset.

It's possible to trace this ~40 year cycle back to 1840. It's not centered on generations as much as major market/economic crashes: 2000, 1968, 1929, 1893, 1837.

Each new cycle begets a major work that is typically written by the OG nerds of the latest reincarnation of the subculture. It ends 30 years later as it drowns in popularity with the original concepts getting diluted by entrepreneurs seeking to reach greater and greater market share. The original nerds eventually splinter over "political" disagreements and ultimately dissociate themselves from what the movement has become. There's about a 10 year period of quiet where the movement/ideas have been more or less forgotten and replaced by boom-type thinking. Also see, https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

Perhaps the cycle is accelerating or perhaps this cycle has just been really fast. Otherwise, it's a little too soon for the movement to be dead or dissolved.

[Slevin]

I dug a bit into the Ramit Sethi stuff last night; and tbh I think it has a lot of value in the framing. Basically he goes to people and asks, "what are you trying to afford, in the best case scenario", then works from that to help people develop plans that cover that. I'm pretty sure 99% of things he says in the end could be written down on a post card, but he has some great delivery and empathy (something a lot of the FIRE crowd tends to lack) which helps people get their priorities straight. Obviously, he is also a cult of personality, but that isn't particularly weird in the space.

Overall, he's just asking the "freedom-to" question, without framing it as a "freedom from work" without people already wanting freedom from work. Most people just generally don't want to spend no money if they don't have to, so they don't, and a lot of them attach their work status and income levels to their identities, so they don't want to leave as well. As someone who sees people understanding and acting in the "freedom to" direction as a generally good thing, I approve of it. Overall I see it as the mop invasion arm of the FI sphere (I heard Ramit talk about putting on your own oxygen mast first, which I think was FI lingo from some years ago, maybe even coined by jacob?), which I categorize as "good" generally, and I'm glad there is somebody in the mainstream telling people how to get their finances in order.

[jacob]

(I heard Ramit talk about putting on your own oxygen mast first, which I think was FI lingo from some years ago, maybe even coined by jacob?)

Not me, the idiom is in general usage and not uncommon.

[grundomatic]

I think that a lot of this is just the reality that younger generations as a whole are economically worse off than their parents generation. These in turn breeds a sense of apathy, hopelessness, perhaps even nihilism towards things like personal finance. Baby Boomers have basically shown an unwillingness to pass the baton so are quite literally still clogging up positions of power and influence as they claw every last bit of money/resources from the rest of society. In theory, all those resources should get passed down to future generations, in reality that just means the rich stay rich and the poor get poorer. People also live so long that it's not unusual to wait until your 60's to receive an inheritance from a passing parent.

This made me think of an SNL skit, Millennial Millions.

The general sentiment has been in the zeitgeist for at least 3(!) decades now, and reminded me of another SNL skit, the only video I could find Bernie used in an ad. Since it doesn't include the response, here's the transcript:

Undecided Female Voter 1: See, it’s like, you look all around, and you see all this stuff? And, everybody’s got stuff but me! Where’s mine?! Where’s MY stuff?! I’m young, man! I should have stuff, too! WHERE’S MY STUFF?!!

Bill Clinton: Well, that’s a really good point. I hear this a lot. I think if this election is about anything, it’s about… “stuff”. It’s about the fact that, under Reagan, Bush, Quayle, more people are working harder and harder for less stuff.

[ Hillary nods and smiles ]
Undecided Female Voter 1: [ twitching ] Where’s my stuff, man?!

Bill Clinton: Exactly! Where is your stuff? We’re in danger of raising the first generation of Americans who… will have less stuff than their parents.

Undecided Female Voter 1: Stuff! Yeah!

Ted Koppel: So, has Gov. Clinton influenced the way you will vote?

Undecided Female Voter 1: I’m… not voting ’til I get my stuff!

It entertains me so much...maybe I should try writing sketch comedy.

[Scott 2]

Five minutes of internet search reveals that Gen Z is rejecting FIRE trend in favor of “soft savings” trend.

Why save after you've seen value inflated away? Or scarcity that no amount of money resolves? Or the total disconnect between effort and rewards, rife in our modern economy?

I feel lucky to have gotten mine over the past twenty years. Starting looks far harder today.

[OutOfTheBlue]

The magic of frugality is that it increases the value of money while decreasing the need for it.

Gold nugget alert.

[Laura Ingalls]

Gold nugget alert.

I agree

[Western Red Cedar]

I feel lucky to have gotten mine over the past twenty years. Starting looks far harder today.

This is an interesting take because I think those just starting out are in a great position.

There is more information available about FIRE, investing and alternative paths now than ever before and it comes in a variety of formats (books, blogs, forums, YouTube videos, podcasts). Investing and banking can be done simply on a phone or online. Employer retirement plans tend to have better options with lower expense ratios. You can get a 5%+ return on secure assets. The unemployment rate is near record lows and demographics are working in the favor of Millennials and Gen Z with a large number of boomers exiting the workforce. There are great options for lucrative careers without getting a four-year degree. There is more potential for geoarbitage than ever before. And... we basically have supercomputers available in our pockets at all times.

The primary hangup I see is when someone ends up taking on massive amounts of student debt without great job prospects. The costs of higher education have skyrocketed and the amount of debt we saddle young students with feels borderline predatory. Expecting most young people to see through traditional scripts about the value of a college education at the age of 17 or 18 is unrealistic IMO. Nonetheless, if they are able to navigate the minefield of college debt or quickly recover from it after graduating, they are in an excellent position.

One of the best things about FIRE (and MMM specifically) in my personal experience is that it made me much more optimistic and less inclined to complain about demographics and macroeconomics.

While generations as a whole may be worse off financially, there are great opportunities for those willing to work hard and implement a modest level of frugality. Young people have never had more options to take an unconventional career path and find some level of financial success than they do today.

[Bicycle7]

I'm a Gen Z'er. I have one friend my age who is interested in mainstream FIRE ideas and frugality.

I'm around older folks and some of them are definitely more interested in frugality and ERE stuff (mostly Gen X'ers and Millenials). I have the perspective that the younger people I'm around are image/consumption driven, disempowered or pick/choose some frugality tactics to live a sorta SEMI-ERE/travel lifestyle.

I also don't get around on the internet all that much so I don't know if frugality is popular in niche sub-cultures with people my age.