What does ERE or Semi-ERE look like during one's last 2-3 decades? When the gradual decline of aging sets in?
On a more traditional FIRE path, especially in the US, it's pretty clear. Keep doing what you have been. Social security defers to age 70, providing your annuity to mitigate old age risk. Healthcare moves to original medicare at 65, with G and D supps. Long term care plans mean shopping for an assisted living facility while healthy. If that's not financially attainable, asset management planning, heading towards Medicaid LTC instead.
Since everything depends on financial capital anyway, re-allocation isn't that big of a deal. You're probably even a passive investor, so the eventual decline of mental facilities might barely impact the portfolio. After all, it's already been running on auto-pilot for several decades. And there's financial slack - a housing downshift, less active hobbies, reduced travel, etc.
So the FIRE path merges into the traditional retirement path. A couple decades of freedom to, at no real cost to the retiree. If anything - the FIRE boards are filled with seniors sitting on run-away wealth. Selection bias sure, but it is a very likely path.
On the ERE, and especially Semi-ERE path, things look different. There's a large amount of physical, social and skill based capital one relies upon. Much of that, while it can defer the aging process, eventually diminishes. What's the plan? My instinct is to maximize the social safety nets, essentially forcing a shift into the traditional path. But that may not be attainable for everyone. Just the all in Medicare plan is $3-6k per year. There are assistance programs, but they are hard to navigate and potentially unreliable.
Maybe more important - socializing one's aging certainly isn't in the spirit of ERE. Particularly ERE2.
Do you walk off into the woods one day? Accept that hip replacement isn't happening, checking out a decade sooner than you might otherwise? Move to a country with better socialized healthcare? There I go again - trying to exploit social safety nets and rejoin the traditional retirement path.
Anyway, been thinking about this and am curious. It's gotta be better than fingers crossed for run-away portfolio growth. While I'd trade dying poor for a couple decades of healthy freedom, is that the answer?
ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
Last edited by Scott 2 on Sat Feb 17, 2024 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
I think the initial question over estimates what money can buy and what it can't.
Physical and mental faculties decline, but social and familial ties don't necessarily.
People who try to solve old age with money aren't the people I want to end up like.
I think spending three decades of your life focusing on your own health, mental faculties, emotional well being and relationships while everyone else is drinking to forget the stress of work is better insurance than anything that's for sale.
In terms of one off interventional surgery that has a pretty high chance of working, my understanding is there is a pretty strong safety net for this type of intervention. Affordable healthcare does exist as does medicare, it's not awesome and not great at a lot of things, but my impression is that very expensive care for older people is what we effectively spend most of our healthcare budget on.
Whether or not your personal moral code allows you to access this care is another question. Is that the question that's being asked?
To my knowledge ERE does not exclude one from getting this type of care paid for by the government?
I also don't see why an EREer, who is still likely to be in runaway mode, just with a lower expense rate and therefore lower overall stash, would be in any worse position than someone who FIREd? Is it because they have less total money?
The point of ERE is resilience, so the financial leg still exists. Ideally one has enough to pay for the home care nurse and enough friends that one doesn't have to.
Physical and mental faculties decline, but social and familial ties don't necessarily.
People who try to solve old age with money aren't the people I want to end up like.
I think spending three decades of your life focusing on your own health, mental faculties, emotional well being and relationships while everyone else is drinking to forget the stress of work is better insurance than anything that's for sale.
In terms of one off interventional surgery that has a pretty high chance of working, my understanding is there is a pretty strong safety net for this type of intervention. Affordable healthcare does exist as does medicare, it's not awesome and not great at a lot of things, but my impression is that very expensive care for older people is what we effectively spend most of our healthcare budget on.
Whether or not your personal moral code allows you to access this care is another question. Is that the question that's being asked?
To my knowledge ERE does not exclude one from getting this type of care paid for by the government?
I also don't see why an EREer, who is still likely to be in runaway mode, just with a lower expense rate and therefore lower overall stash, would be in any worse position than someone who FIREd? Is it because they have less total money?
The point of ERE is resilience, so the financial leg still exists. Ideally one has enough to pay for the home care nurse and enough friends that one doesn't have to.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
The root question is ERE old age strategy. Arthritis sets in. Math gets hard. Family moves. Friends die.
All the problems retirement was originally intended for. Today's society solves them with financial capital. What happens when that's not the plan?
Reliance upon the social safety net, especially offered to those in poverty, looks fragile. Maybe there's an ethical debate too, but I'm much more interested in the nuts and bolts. If I tell someone - retire at 30 on $10k, what am I offering them at 80?
Even better if this isn't theoretical, but rather observed experience. I met poor elders at the food pantry. Life didn't look great.
All the problems retirement was originally intended for. Today's society solves them with financial capital. What happens when that's not the plan?
Reliance upon the social safety net, especially offered to those in poverty, looks fragile. Maybe there's an ethical debate too, but I'm much more interested in the nuts and bolts. If I tell someone - retire at 30 on $10k, what am I offering them at 80?
Even better if this isn't theoretical, but rather observed experience. I met poor elders at the food pantry. Life didn't look great.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
Well, I would argue that ERE/FIRE are actually inherently "socialized" paradigms, because they are at Level Yellow with "socialized" solutions prior assumed at Level Green. Jacob and MMM both moved to the U.S. from more "socialized" countries. Are you checking out books from the library rather than buying them online? That's a "socialized" solution. Are you operating your bicycle on a paved county road? That's a "socialized" solution. Etc. Etc. It's the water you swim in if you grow up in a 'socialized" realm, and Level Yellow progresses from that basis; it doesn't regress to Level Orange, although it does "look back" to the more masculine-energy/individualist functioning of Levels Orange/Red/Beige.Scott 2 wrote:Maybe more important - socializing one's aging certainly isn't in the spirit of ERE. Particularly ERE2.
Scott 2 wrote: I met poor elders at the food pantry. Life didn't look great.
I cared for my eccentric friend who was worth over $100 million while he was dying from cancer at his home during the Covid lockdown. His life didn't look great. here's what happens if you narrow-focus your life on your own health/fitness (1) and accumulating money (2.)
1) You get old. You get sick. You die. Like everybody else.
2) You can't take it with you.
If you don't do Level /Purple/Blue and invest in a famly/tribe AND you don't do Level Green and invest in a community, you better figure out how to do Level Turquoise and develop some spiritual depth and acceptance. Best bet would be to do all 3, and that is my plan. We all die alone, but there's definitely some "more or less" to this truism. Will humans be crying, hugging, and sharing stories about what a great supportive, yet fun, human you were at your memorial service held in the home of a loved one, as was true for my father? Or will humans be standing at stilted distance in a funeral home parking lot telling semi-humorous stories about your eccentricity and semi-asshole moves at your memorial service, as was true for my multi-millionaire friend? Will they cherish momentos of your time spent together gathered from your home and start crying again when they discover your cache of folders labeled with names of loved ones and plans to help each of them in personalized ways, or will they surreptitiously search your house for rumored caches of gold coins while your designated hospice helper who is just some weird woman who happens to be dating your best friend (me) is sleeping (true story)?
Last edited by 7Wannabe5 on Sat Feb 17, 2024 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
@scott2, I'm not sure why you're assuming an ERE or semiEREr wouldn't or couldn't use financial capital for old age strategy, or rather, why they wouldn't have it available as one of their options?
One of my old age care plans is to solve it like everyone else does, with financial capital.
Another old age future scenario plan is that by the time I get there (2070 or so), financial capital is almost worthless unless you are one of the few remaining uberwealthy people because of The World Situation, and so I'm likely to be at least somewhat better off because I spent more of my life than most working on social and skill capital. I'm more likely to be an elder in a functional intentional village surrounded by people who will take better care of me than my other options Out There.
One of my old age care plans is to solve it like everyone else does, with financial capital.
Another old age future scenario plan is that by the time I get there (2070 or so), financial capital is almost worthless unless you are one of the few remaining uberwealthy people because of The World Situation, and so I'm likely to be at least somewhat better off because I spent more of my life than most working on social and skill capital. I'm more likely to be an elder in a functional intentional village surrounded by people who will take better care of me than my other options Out There.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
It seems like this is a question with a lot of assumptions, but I'm not sure what those assumptions are? So my answer might be totally missing the point.
I take issue with the assumption that financial capital is the most resilient form of capital. It is the most popular. Hyper-inflation reduces your portfolio to crumbs in a matter of months. Your diminishing mental capacities cause you to send all of your wealth to a deposed Nigerian prince...
Assuming one avoids these catastrophes, financial capital doesn't solve arthritis or loss of mental faculties, family and friends. I think this is why older people are unhappy, not lack of funds.
Why is an ERE person equated with a poor person? A poor person lives poorly on $10k a year, an ERE person lives extravagantly on $10k a year.
An ERE person who saves 33x expenses and spends $10k a year is in a vastly better financial position than the majority of society. As such, society will have to solve for a lot of old people in worse positions. Society does not always provide for its disadvantaged members, but at least you'll have company? The alternative seems to be guessing the exact amount one needs to alleviate medical problems in old age, which also seems like a fragile solution.
It seems like the thought experiment might be "what if an ERE person is stripped of all forms of capital, except for financial capital, and can no longer work to earn financial capital." I think losing all other forms of capital one has built over a lifetime is unlikely.
If that is the question that is being asked, then an ERE person is subject to the same constraints as anyone living on fixed income that exactly covers their expenses. They are in trouble if their expenses rise. If one retires at the absolute bottom of their leanFIRE scheme and completely insists on never earning another dollar again in their employable years, and all social safety nets fail, then any increase in expenses will make them fiscally insolvent.
Living example of an ERE person who is old: Vicki Robbin is 78.
I take issue with the assumption that financial capital is the most resilient form of capital. It is the most popular. Hyper-inflation reduces your portfolio to crumbs in a matter of months. Your diminishing mental capacities cause you to send all of your wealth to a deposed Nigerian prince...
Assuming one avoids these catastrophes, financial capital doesn't solve arthritis or loss of mental faculties, family and friends. I think this is why older people are unhappy, not lack of funds.
Why is an ERE person equated with a poor person? A poor person lives poorly on $10k a year, an ERE person lives extravagantly on $10k a year.
An ERE person who saves 33x expenses and spends $10k a year is in a vastly better financial position than the majority of society. As such, society will have to solve for a lot of old people in worse positions. Society does not always provide for its disadvantaged members, but at least you'll have company? The alternative seems to be guessing the exact amount one needs to alleviate medical problems in old age, which also seems like a fragile solution.
It seems like the thought experiment might be "what if an ERE person is stripped of all forms of capital, except for financial capital, and can no longer work to earn financial capital." I think losing all other forms of capital one has built over a lifetime is unlikely.
If that is the question that is being asked, then an ERE person is subject to the same constraints as anyone living on fixed income that exactly covers their expenses. They are in trouble if their expenses rise. If one retires at the absolute bottom of their leanFIRE scheme and completely insists on never earning another dollar again in their employable years, and all social safety nets fail, then any increase in expenses will make them fiscally insolvent.
Living example of an ERE person who is old: Vicki Robbin is 78.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16390
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
Those with higher spending levels (WL4-5) often mistakenly think that lower spending levels require a lot of effort. Why he must be spending 8 hours a day making laundry detergent or cooking lentils. IOW, the belief is that ERE is but replacing one's day job with a lower paying one. What's important to understand is that ERE-living does not require more effort than consumer or FIRE-living but rather a different and more informed effort.
What does take effort is unlearning and relearning a complete lifestyle's worth of different ways of going about life. In terms of age it may be increasingly difficult to "teach an old dog new tricks". OTOH, in terms of the "trick"-department, some are already "old" when they graduate college. Overall, in that regard, since it takes ~10 years for the average enthusiast to reach WL6-7, ERE is probably not a solid solution for 60 yo spenders who suddenly realize that they haven't saved enough for retirement. Too many bad habits to wind down.
To use food as an illustrative example, the average family spends $600/month (numbers several years old) and throws out 40% of their food uneaten. Shops spontaneously for namebrand preprocessed food. Eats a lot of meat and dairy products. The average ERE shops and eats entirely differently for 1/3-1/4 of that amount and wastes less than 5%. That's an entirely different food philosophy.
The same differences are displayed throughout what people buy and value. Clothes, furniture, electronics, cars, travel, ...
The way to think of these alternative kinds of capitals is not as something that one must work hard to convert to "income" but rather a set that easily provides their respective forms of "income" as long as on does not draw too hard. This is similar to those who have prioritized financial capital also don't spend hours each day managing their investment. Rather the capital is what allows them to spend very little effort. Compare to a lawyer who charges $300 for 15 minutes of work. You're not paying for the 15 minutes; you're paying for the work that went into being able to get the job done in 15 minutes. That knowledge does not go away as easily. Put in yet another way, the lawyer is not putting in $300 worth of effort to do their 15 minutes of work in the same way as the client is putting in $300 to pay for it.
On a separate note, certain issues can be strategically planned out. For example, it would be wise to ensure that one's home is well-maintained so as to not have to crawl around on the roof at age 60. Picking a home that avoid stairs (so as not to fall and break one's neck---that literally happened to one of our neighbors, who spent months wearing a collar) that is near a hospital or fire station (<10mins) in a region that is not subject to heat-wave power-outs or epidemic science denial would also be wise. (People over 65 are especially vulnerable to both.)
In a more general sense, "Swedish death cleaning" is a good idea to do before one lacks the energy to deal with accumulated liabilities. In all likelihood, the average ERE person lives their life with a high priority on avoiding as many liabilities as possible. IOW, ERE will not "discover" a basement full of crap at age 65 when too old to lift boxes.
In terms of personal preferences, I'd rather steer this supertanker away from the reefs early than making jokes or presumptions that "my community or family" will be the ones to do the work I should have done myself when was still young enough. If that means spending the last 20-30 years of my life with a simpler lifestyle, so be it.
Investment-wise I'm already transitioning to a more hands-off approach. This is where prioritizing financial investments over "local tangible" ones, like owning a farm or a laundromat pays off. Those who prioritized such investments need to start thinking about a new CEO sooner rather than later.
In conclusion, I see life as something that winds up and then winds down and where the work required is minimal and the struggle is practically non-existent IF AND ONLY IF a good [lifetime] philosophy is adapted early and followed through with consistently. I think the full version of ERE does that.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
@7Wannabe5 - When I talk about socializing care, I mean exercising limits and loopholes with the system. Hit both the government and private food pantries, so unlimited food is free. Use the subsidized senior bus for all transportation. Eat free lunch at the community senior center every day. Perfectly thread the social security retirement date, to maximize Medicare Savings assistance qualification.
I can envision a highly effective extractive strategy. But I don't think that's what anyone here has in mind.
Prior to cancer, I'd imagine your rich friend's final decade offered a lot. Maybe he was constitutionally incapable of enjoying it. But that's a different question IMO. The people I saw at the food pantry - their time was committed to waiting for social services. Their vision was too impaired to read. Hands too impaired to write. Modern medicine delays these problems. Biologics for arthritis. Surgery for cataracts. Wealth softens the impact.
As a very simple example - the older one gets, the more being cold sucks. At 25, a 62 degree house is amusing. At 40, the joints are a little tight and you need a sweater. At 75 - it's impossible to get warm and the body aches. Already with my own (frugal) parents - the house is approach 70 degrees. A coworker's wife handled menopause by running the heat at 76! Warming that box is expensive.
@AxelHeyst - The financial capital required potentially exceeds ERE levels, especially for someone who's run a Semi-ERE strategy. My "optimal" medicare strategy is $5k per year alone. Obviously that's a failure on my part - applying FIRE biases to a lifestyle I do not lead. Hence the question.
You make a good point - the existential crisis forces generational strategies. Gen Z cannot ape Gen X. I'm not even clear on the (simpler?) Gen X ERE aging strategy. As an elder millennial, my FIRE strategy might collapse that direction, making it more interesting.
@Jin+Guice - Good point on my assumption about the resilience of financial capital. I figure between a portfolio and government programs, the FIRE income stream is dependable. But it too could collapse. A good FIRE plan has slack, but cannot absorb unbounded deterioration.
My question might be restated - what does the ERE elder do to live extravagantly on $10k? I think Axel's answer hints at it. Run-away growth of non-financial capital. That might be the missing detail in my mental model. It's hard (for me) to visualize how non-financial reserves compound.
That blind spot assumes an ERE elder accepts minimal margin for error. That's not true. Ideally, anyways.
Is Vicki Robin ERE? Part of what leads me to this question, is frugal personalities always seem to end up rich. When you're playing with house money, it's easier to laugh about dancing on the edge. This article suggests she's pretty comfortable:
https://money.com/vicki-robin-financial ... ire-early/
I can envision a highly effective extractive strategy. But I don't think that's what anyone here has in mind.
Prior to cancer, I'd imagine your rich friend's final decade offered a lot. Maybe he was constitutionally incapable of enjoying it. But that's a different question IMO. The people I saw at the food pantry - their time was committed to waiting for social services. Their vision was too impaired to read. Hands too impaired to write. Modern medicine delays these problems. Biologics for arthritis. Surgery for cataracts. Wealth softens the impact.
As a very simple example - the older one gets, the more being cold sucks. At 25, a 62 degree house is amusing. At 40, the joints are a little tight and you need a sweater. At 75 - it's impossible to get warm and the body aches. Already with my own (frugal) parents - the house is approach 70 degrees. A coworker's wife handled menopause by running the heat at 76! Warming that box is expensive.
@AxelHeyst - The financial capital required potentially exceeds ERE levels, especially for someone who's run a Semi-ERE strategy. My "optimal" medicare strategy is $5k per year alone. Obviously that's a failure on my part - applying FIRE biases to a lifestyle I do not lead. Hence the question.
You make a good point - the existential crisis forces generational strategies. Gen Z cannot ape Gen X. I'm not even clear on the (simpler?) Gen X ERE aging strategy. As an elder millennial, my FIRE strategy might collapse that direction, making it more interesting.
@Jin+Guice - Good point on my assumption about the resilience of financial capital. I figure between a portfolio and government programs, the FIRE income stream is dependable. But it too could collapse. A good FIRE plan has slack, but cannot absorb unbounded deterioration.
My question might be restated - what does the ERE elder do to live extravagantly on $10k? I think Axel's answer hints at it. Run-away growth of non-financial capital. That might be the missing detail in my mental model. It's hard (for me) to visualize how non-financial reserves compound.
That blind spot assumes an ERE elder accepts minimal margin for error. That's not true. Ideally, anyways.
Is Vicki Robin ERE? Part of what leads me to this question, is frugal personalities always seem to end up rich. When you're playing with house money, it's easier to laugh about dancing on the edge. This article suggests she's pretty comfortable:
https://money.com/vicki-robin-financial ... ire-early/
Jacob's living the lifestyle, but far from 70 and with a strong financial backstop.At the time, she was confined to the pullout couch of her Whidbey Island, Wash., living room, with its view of the Cascade Mountains and Puget Sound.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
@Jacob - I appreciate the insight. Further evidence of my non-financial capital blind spot.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
In this interview from a few years ago, she talks about how her spending is $7-8k per year.Scott 2 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 12:33 pmIs Vicki Robin ERE? Part of what leads me to this question, is frugal personalities always seem to end up rich. When you're playing with house money, it's easier to laugh about dancing on the edge. This article suggests she's pretty comfortable:
https://money.com/vicki-robin-financial ... ire-early/
Jacob's living the lifestyle, but far from 70 and with a strong financial backstop.
viewtopic.php?t=8819
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
This might just be a difference in interpretation, but one of my lifegoals as an ERE person is to not live extravagantly at any burn rate. It is to live simply and well. I intend to use strategic thinking, wisdom, and multiple forms of capital to ensure that I don't have to spend all my time in a bread line when I'm 80.Scott 2 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 12:33 pmMy question might be restated - what does the ERE elder do to live extravagantly on $10k? I think Axel's answer hints at it. Run-away growth of non-financial capital. That might be the missing detail in my mental model. It's hard (for me) to visualize how non-financial reserves compound.
That blind spot assumes an ERE elder accepts minimal margin for error. That's not true. Ideally, anyways.
[ETA: I missed that you used the word extravagantly because JnG used it. He's mr piratecaptainERE, so he's using it in a very specific way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.]
But also, one of the whole points of ERE is to have multiple forms of capital, one of which is financial. If I'm 80 and literally cannot spend more than $10k/yr, then either I did something wrong between now and then or the world situation changed enough that no amount of saving would move the needle (hyperinflation devaluation etc etc).
So I'm pushing back on your assumption that the average ERE'r or semiEREr can't spend more than some low number. I think most semiERE'rs (who start well before their 60's) will wind up developing runaway financial capital as well as non-financial capital, just not as quickly as tradERE. (Again, assuming things continue to work they way they have, which I don't have a lot of faith in. Hence my relative deprioritization (but not abandonment!) of financial accumulation).
--ETA:
I intend to live extravagantly only in the third sense, and even then only in a specific way: to live as full-spectrum as possible in terms of awe and appreciation at the raw fact of being alive, working on grand and interesting projects with interesting people, and participating in the insanely interesting process of human cultural succession, etc.ex·trav·a·gant·ly
1. with a lack of restraint in spending money or using resources.
"he lived extravagantly and fell deeply into debt"
2. in an excessive or elaborate way.
"extravagantly decorated ceilings painted with stars and angels"
3. to a large degree and with extreme feeling.
"as a child, Mozart was extravagantly praised"
Last edited by AxelHeyst on Sat Feb 17, 2024 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
Gotcha. My note would be that is also exactly the sort of thing that Lehman Bros., General Motors, Wal-Mart, J. D. Rockefeller, and my multi-millionaire friend exhibited in their strategies. For example, WalMart employees make so little money they qualify for SNAP benefits which they spend at their place of employment. My uber-wealthy friend read that currants were a super-food, so he raided the food bar at Whole Foods and separated out just the currants from a mixed dish that included them, thereby paying less than they were selling for on a by-the-pound alone basis. The Level Orange (at all levels!) tendency to Freeload towards Tragedy of the Commons is universal; the best players just do it more efficiently and extensively, This is why Meta-Crisis. I'm definitely not trying to communicate, "Can't beat them, so might as well join them.", but directing the middle-class focus towards any such strategies employed by the poor is one the tactics the uber-wealthy/powerful employ towards distraction and maintaining the "invisibility" of the ever-grasping hand of The Man.Scott 2 wrote:When I talk about socializing care, I mean exercising limits and loopholes with the system. Hit both the government and private food pantries, so unlimited food is free. Use the subsidized senior bus for all transportation. Eat free lunch at the community senior center every day. Perfectly thread the social security retirement date, to maximize Medicare Savings assistance qualification.
This is quite true. The best solution is the simple, but not easy one, which Jacob or Ego would likely recommend, which would be doing strength exercise to the extent that you carry more heat-producing muscle than the median old human. The simple and easy solution I came up with as an only-moderately-old-person-with-a-young-person-disease-that-causes-old-person-symptoms who lives near the 45th parallel is that I make use of a 180 watt electric blanket, so that I don't have to heat the entire box to the temperature my inflammatory-disease-impacted-joints would prefer. This solution also cost me $0 to initiate, because I got the blanket as a gift from one of my poly-partners. An old homeless human could probably even run an electric blanket off a portable solar panel/battery bank system or jump-start power invertor they surreptitiously plugged in while hanging out on the internet and/or reading Regency Romance novels at the public library. Combined with one of Jacob's refrigi-ware suits, you would be pretty invincibly toasty, expecially if you also added one of those fold-up integrated cot-tents to your shopping cart. That said, my ideal old age solution would run more towards a wood-burning sauna on the site of my next permaculture project.Scott 2 wrote:As a very simple example - the older one gets, the more being cold sucks. At 25, a 62 degree house is amusing. At 40, the joints are a little tight and you need a sweater. At 75 - it's impossible to get warm and the body aches. Already with my own (frugal) parents - the house is approach 70 degrees. A coworker's wife handled menopause by running the heat at 76! Warming that box is expensive.
Keep your pessimistic min-max objections/suggestions coming! I find that bouncing off of them is having an invigorating effect on my creativity and optimism.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
@theanimal - Reading the interview - her position sounds similar to Jacob's. Leading the lifestyle, but with a financial backstop. Nice house. Multiple income streams. Enough money to identify as a value investor. Financially successful parents (inheritance?). Ivy league education.
Not a criticism - only acknowledgement that it's a different type of security. I hugely admire everything she's done. Looking at her current site, it's interesting to see the other forms of run-away capital. She's a pillar of the local community.
Not a criticism - only acknowledgement that it's a different type of security. I hugely admire everything she's done. Looking at her current site, it's interesting to see the other forms of run-away capital. She's a pillar of the local community.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
The extravagant comment was a response to me saying that ERE people seek to live extravagantly on $10k a year.
I do live extravagantly on less than $10k a year precisely because I tap into other forms of capital. I don't see why this will change as I get older. I imagine my definition of extravagant will change.
There are two answers to what I think the initial question was (still not 100% sure), but neither of them really answer it. The first is that an ERE person should have sufficient financial capital in old age to cover their ass. The second is that an ERE person shouldn't need it.
I still feel like maybe there is a relevant question in here? Like what is your old age plan? How much do you think expenses will rise as you age? What do you think the state of social safety nets will be when you need to use them? Are you ethically opposed to engaging with the medical industrial complex?
These questions are very hard to answer until one arrives.
If I get to be the spokesperson for semi-ERE, I have a post about how you will eventually still need to deal with old age retirement. I also think it is likely that most semi-ERE practitioners will become FI in less than the "normal" 40+ years. Part of the point of semi-ERE is that you keep working, so you can more consistently and easily access not only a financial stash but also income. So an "oh no" at 59 is hedged by income and recent job history (I again think the need for this is over-anticipated though).
ETA:
I do live extravagantly on less than $10k a year precisely because I tap into other forms of capital. I don't see why this will change as I get older. I imagine my definition of extravagant will change.
There are two answers to what I think the initial question was (still not 100% sure), but neither of them really answer it. The first is that an ERE person should have sufficient financial capital in old age to cover their ass. The second is that an ERE person shouldn't need it.
I still feel like maybe there is a relevant question in here? Like what is your old age plan? How much do you think expenses will rise as you age? What do you think the state of social safety nets will be when you need to use them? Are you ethically opposed to engaging with the medical industrial complex?
These questions are very hard to answer until one arrives.
If I get to be the spokesperson for semi-ERE, I have a post about how you will eventually still need to deal with old age retirement. I also think it is likely that most semi-ERE practitioners will become FI in less than the "normal" 40+ years. Part of the point of semi-ERE is that you keep working, so you can more consistently and easily access not only a financial stash but also income. So an "oh no" at 59 is hedged by income and recent job history (I again think the need for this is over-anticipated though).
ETA:
But leading the life with a financial backstop is ERE?
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
@AxelHeyst - Understood. Of course ERE does not preclude accumulating financial capital. But hitting 65 with a 7 figure net worth isn't how I imagine the ERE elder. Something closer to the lifestyle @7Wannabe5 is heading towards. Her recent journal started me thinking. I have a very specific vision of aging, and the two don't match.
@7Wannabe5 - Freeloading carries a value judgement I don't intend. My purpose here is not to criticize. I can appreciate an optimized individual strategy and understand why it is justified. Contributions not captured in GDP still count, at least on my ledger. I agree with you on the class distraction.
Through the fortune of circumstance, I'm on a FIRE path. Yet, I admire the ERE path. My goal is to understand the end game, which is rarely discussed.
@7Wannabe5 - Freeloading carries a value judgement I don't intend. My purpose here is not to criticize. I can appreciate an optimized individual strategy and understand why it is justified. Contributions not captured in GDP still count, at least on my ledger. I agree with you on the class distraction.
Through the fortune of circumstance, I'm on a FIRE path. Yet, I admire the ERE path. My goal is to understand the end game, which is rarely discussed.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
Life is not static.
I live with a loving partner. Together we have reached ere in most facets, two and a half decade ago.
With ere-lifestyle I live on the same two or three modest places in Europe for months each year. And have interesting social contacts in those places.
As my capacities will diminish in the next decades I will reduce my "spread" and simplify. Reducing places will mean less running costs, but will add financial capital.
I use my practical skills to maintain. DW runs part time a vegetable garden together with a friend. I am part time volunteer in my rowing and sailing club.
As in Jacob's book I take my health as the most important capital I have.
Resilience is for me also: studying a lot about nutrition, about use of your body. And practicing what you have learned. Just like some very old friends (one reached 92 one reached 102 both male) I have seen/practiced that ere-lifestyle applies too on health.
(I have about the same age as Vicky Robin)
I live with a loving partner. Together we have reached ere in most facets, two and a half decade ago.
With ere-lifestyle I live on the same two or three modest places in Europe for months each year. And have interesting social contacts in those places.
As my capacities will diminish in the next decades I will reduce my "spread" and simplify. Reducing places will mean less running costs, but will add financial capital.
I use my practical skills to maintain. DW runs part time a vegetable garden together with a friend. I am part time volunteer in my rowing and sailing club.
As in Jacob's book I take my health as the most important capital I have.
Resilience is for me also: studying a lot about nutrition, about use of your body. And practicing what you have learned. Just like some very old friends (one reached 92 one reached 102 both male) I have seen/practiced that ere-lifestyle applies too on health.
(I have about the same age as Vicky Robin)
-
mathiverse
- Posts: 838
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:40 pm
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
I know this is just one example/problem in the space of problems, but I wanted to mention that it seems like a better solution to the heating problem is to live in progressively smaller places that are cheaper to heat, improve what you're wearing to be warmer, and, as 7W5 said, to heat the person not the room as much as possible. A one bedroom, one bathroom, one story unit is a good choice on many dimensions (eg no neck breaking stairs, cheaper to heat, less to clean, less places to store clutter, cheaper to update with disability features like handles on the bathtub, etc).
-
mathiverse
- Posts: 838
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:40 pm
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
I think this discussion would go better if we distinguished between 1) ERE with 25x - 33x expenses (jacob and most people here), 2) semi-ERE where the person has no plan to reach 25x - 33x intentionally (7W5? Not that I think she framed her lifestyle as semi-ERE, just that I think it fits this description), and 3) semi-ERE with plans to reach 25x - 33x expenses at some point (AxelHeyst, J+G).
(1) and (3) both have a financial backstop at the end. (2) may or may not depending on how things went, accidentally.
(1) and (3) both have a financial backstop at the end. (2) may or may not depending on how things went, accidentally.
Re: ERE or Semi-ERE past Age 65
The problem with that question is it assumes all other forms of capital necessarily decline to 0 as you reach old age. If you're primarily relying on financial capital now, that may seem to be a side note or natural assumption, but if you aren't, it's a very odd assumption.
It sort of feels like being asked what my health plan is, considering that I will naturally develop diabetes. And then being like "ok, weird that you would assume that, but I guess I'll start by eating less sugar?" And then being told that I probably won't do that and asked to discuss the details of glucose monitors.
It also matters what a million means to you in terms of current spending. A mil for me means I can 3% SWR several times current spending (an even higher multiple of current minimum spending), so like, no I don't plan on having that much. I do plan on having more than 33x the absolute minimum I can live on right now. I think it's also more likely than not that I end up with a low seven figure NW by accident.
I'm not sure if the assumption is that most ERE people are barely scraping by on a JAFI and saving "only" 25-33x that amount, but that still puts one with >$250-$330k which seems like a substantial amount of money to me. It's also been advised that people do not enter the retire forever stage of their life with 0 spending flexibility based on their minimum spend number.
I plan on using socialized healthcare, which to my understanding exists in a pretty accessible form for the elderly. I don't know the details of that because it's 30 or so years away for me. My plan is to research it when it's closer to 10, which would be my plan for a lot of this stuff. Like right now I'm worried about making myself happy in my 40s with the understanding that 40s me makes myself happy in my 50s, etc...
Mostly it's hard for me to answer the question because it's asking me about what shit will be like in 40+ years and what it feels like to be more than twice as old as I am now and I have no idea. If I suddenly woke up 80 today and had implemented my plan over the last 40+ years, I'm pretty sure I'd be golden.
Perhaps I am still misunderstanding the question? Maybe it would be useful if you @Scott2 answered the question, or if the question is not applicable to you bc you have too much money, answer as if you have the amount of money you are talking about?
It sort of feels like being asked what my health plan is, considering that I will naturally develop diabetes. And then being like "ok, weird that you would assume that, but I guess I'll start by eating less sugar?" And then being told that I probably won't do that and asked to discuss the details of glucose monitors.
It also matters what a million means to you in terms of current spending. A mil for me means I can 3% SWR several times current spending (an even higher multiple of current minimum spending), so like, no I don't plan on having that much. I do plan on having more than 33x the absolute minimum I can live on right now. I think it's also more likely than not that I end up with a low seven figure NW by accident.
I'm not sure if the assumption is that most ERE people are barely scraping by on a JAFI and saving "only" 25-33x that amount, but that still puts one with >$250-$330k which seems like a substantial amount of money to me. It's also been advised that people do not enter the retire forever stage of their life with 0 spending flexibility based on their minimum spend number.
I plan on using socialized healthcare, which to my understanding exists in a pretty accessible form for the elderly. I don't know the details of that because it's 30 or so years away for me. My plan is to research it when it's closer to 10, which would be my plan for a lot of this stuff. Like right now I'm worried about making myself happy in my 40s with the understanding that 40s me makes myself happy in my 50s, etc...
Mostly it's hard for me to answer the question because it's asking me about what shit will be like in 40+ years and what it feels like to be more than twice as old as I am now and I have no idea. If I suddenly woke up 80 today and had implemented my plan over the last 40+ years, I'm pretty sure I'd be golden.
Perhaps I am still misunderstanding the question? Maybe it would be useful if you @Scott2 answered the question, or if the question is not applicable to you bc you have too much money, answer as if you have the amount of money you are talking about?