What is your FIRE number? Your expected FIRE expenses?

[GandK]

+1 to every word @IlliniDave just said.

I wish there were an official Wheatonesque scale for ER levels just for clarity in these discussions. But I know I'd be in a middling position on one if it existed, and will probably always be. I've yet to be made happy by anything I've taken to extremes.

[Dragline]

Let's just say "Enough is enough, and enough is subjective" and leave it at that.

Your challenge -- should you choose to accept it -- is to define "enough" in a manner that is both practically achievable and reasonably satisfying for you.

[cmonkey]

I do care how I feel at the end of a day listening to the birds and insects sing while the sun sets. I want to feel *there*.

You took the words right out of my mind. All hell could break out, I'd be living in a hut in the woods eating bark....but the sun would still shine and I'd probably still smile.

I think a lot of this also depends on how risk averse you are individually. This has a lot of bearing on how far down the ERE path you go, as opposed to simply staying near EER.

[TopHatFox]

[Ego]

There's an investing web site I occasionally participate on where I often find myself saying, "There is no one-size-fits-all best way of doing things."

True, it is subjective. But that subjectivity does not change the fact that there are some options that are...
1) always, for everyone, more ideal than others
2) statistically more likely to produce ideal results than others

[IlliniDave]

There's an investing web site I occasionally participate on where I often find myself saying, "There is no one-size-fits-all best way of doing things."

True, it is subjective. But that subjectivity does not change the fact that there are some options that are...
1) always, for everyone, more ideal than others
2) statistically more likely to produce ideal results than others

Whose definition of ideal?

[Ego]

Yours.

ETA, Future-you.

[IlliniDave]

Yours.

ETA, Future-you.

Okay, so we're right back to what I said, as I would contend that ideal for me and ideal for everyone ex-me is not the same thing.

[Did]

Jacob has sometimes pointed out that some people have a zero cost of living. I think that was one of his goals in the about page. Obviously the whole thing is extremely subjective and personal. There are an unlimited number of ways to skin the cat. Obsessing over what is and isn't ERE is just as pointless for the average punter. ERE is largely Jacob's journey and what worked for him. There are millions of people - billions - happy with their path in this life. If you find yours, well, good for you.

[Ego]

I don't know if I'll ever do much as a retiree that would meet the conventional definitions of personal growth or productivity either.

There are an unlimited number of ways to skin the cat.

You may be right. The way I see it, taking the leap with an anti-growth mindset is tantamount to jumping out of a plane without a parachute. But I guess I could be wrong.

[IlliniDave]

I don't know if I'll ever do much as a retiree that would meet the conventional definitions of personal growth or productivity either.

There are an unlimited number of ways to skin the cat.

You may be right. The way I see it, taking the leap with an anti-growth mindset is tantamount to jumping out of a plane without a parachute. But I guess I could be wrong.

Who said anything about an anti-growth mindset? I suspect I'll change over time. Some may judge that the dimensions/degrees of that change does not constitute growth, but I can't help that.

[TopHatFox]

It would seem that you all like the idea of 7k/yr expenses--or at least reading about it on this blog--but tend to prefer and produce more like 15-20k/yr expenses, or even more. Assets accumulate accordingly; FI dates pushed-back accordingly. This is interesting. Is it just me & three others that do the whole <7k/yr thing? FI or expenses is certainly not a competition, but it is curious that many (most?) of you tend to spend and accumulate almost two or three times the site's operandi.

[IlliniDave]

FI or expenses is certainly not a competition, but it is curious that many (most?) of you tend to spend and accumulate almost two or three times the site's operandi.

I know for some of us it's in partly a matter of having a late start and after many years grinding towards the generic solution it's difficult to switch gears abruptly. I'm on course to be more of a "traditional early retiree". My M.O. has been partly (relatively) large accumulation, and partly through frugality/simplicity in lifestyle. The latter is what makes ERE of interest to me. I'll probably never have the drive to live in the sub $10K range. I think the first thing I ever typed on this site was something to the effect of, "I don't think I really belong here," meaning that by then I'd already determined that I would bottom out in the $24K - $30K range in terms of ongoing expenses before discontent would begin to rise again.

[GandK]

This is interesting. Is it just me & three others that do the whole <7k/yr thing? FI or expenses is certainly not a competition, but it is curious that many (most?) of you tend to spend and accumulate almost two or three times the site's operandi.

Well, some of us are married and/or have children, which skews everything. I could do any number of things (financially or otherwise) in a one-person household that I cannot do in a five-person household. And while our living expenses are less than $35k as a family, which would divide out to less than $7k apiece, five people don't consume e.g. five times the air conditioning, so the math for even figuring this out is not straightforward for multi-person households. I don't think we are down to the $7k individual level at all. More than twice that level, at a guess. Still way less than our spendy neighbors, though, and on track to meet our own targets.

Edited to add: there are also, for most of us, a handful of things that cost money that we are simply not willing to give up, either because they bring us more joy than they cost in dollars or because they prevent more discomfort than they cost. And those things need to be budgeted for if they can't be... eh... overcome.

[cmonkey]

This is interesting. Is it just me & three others that do the whole <7k/yr thing? FI or expenses is certainly not a competition, but it is curious that many (most?) of you tend to spend and accumulate almost two or three times the site's operandi.

I am at 14.5K for two people so right near 7K individually, so we are similar to jacob and his DW. I think one big difference though is that we don't get 4X the leverage on our dollars...I would guess 2-3X.....but who knows, I have no idea how to measure that. I did just snag a $900 dryer for $150 on craigslist, so that is about 9X leveraged.

Among the hardcore of us....of course it's an unspoken competition.

[rube]

Indeed, we spend only about 7K, eh...... EACH person of the family
And with a family you make certain consessions. It is all part of 'the game'.

Also, imo, being a parent increases your responsibility level. I would probably have taken other, some would say more risky, decisions. E.g. accepting less 'buffer'. (Or maybe I am just making up excuses?)

[7Wannabe5]

Well, I haven't worked full-time for anybody other than myself since early 2002 when I was 37. I started my book business with $8000 I inherited, so maybe that was my FIRE number? My ex went missing after we split in 2007, and I had to help my kids with expenses until my DD25 was done with college 3 years ago, so my expenses were as high as $16,000/yr for some of those years. Now I'm living large and easy just supporting myself on around $9000/yr.

1) Book business
2) Retail arbitrage
3) Very low rent in exchange for some cooking
4) No rent in exchange for some elder-care
5) Kept woman or not-legally recognized marriage with terms of spousal support
6) Part-time substitute teacher
7) Perma-culturist
8) Poly-amorous courtesan-for-gift/barter
9) Hodge-podge of do-it-yourself-rather-than-pay-somebody-else frugal undertakings

I feel like I am forgetting something, but that's pretty much what I've done for cash or practical or luxury support since 2002. Except for the occasional very busy week of book sales, or a few straight weeks helping get a kindergarten up and running, I have never worked anything like 40 hours at any of the above. Actually, I should not have perma-culturist on the list because I have not broken even on my investment in that enterprise yet. In theory, I will be eligible to collect 1/3 of my ex's SS stipend when I am 62, and then my whole amount when I am 67. I doubt that I will ever have to seek full-time employment by other again, and I enjoy being a book scout, teacher, perma-culturist and barter-courtesan too much to ever want to stop engaging in these generalist activities completely, although I anticipate that I might vary the venue or terms/details of contract in which I engage in any of them in the future as circumstances or my druthers change.

Of course, it is also my intention to reduce my cash output to the level that I will be the WINNER of the FRUGALIST OF THEM ALL trophy. The problem is that it is too easy for me to cheat with my skills in the courtesan/barter category. I would offer a handicap if it weren't for the fact that I have suggested on more than one occasion that similar opportunities might appear for any of the fit young men on this forum who would go to the trouble of acquiring some ballroom dance skills. Those ladies will throw down $5000 on a spangly dress they only wear once.

[Chris]

there are also, for most of us, a handful of things that cost money that we are simply not willing to give up, either because they bring us more joy than they cost in dollars or because they prevent more discomfort than they cost.

Yep, that's me.

Assuming I'd live more like Jacob (get a roommate, ditch my car, quit international travel), my annual expenses would be below $8k.

[jacob]

I didn't intend to start some kind of No True Scotsman inspired argument about who's in and who's out of the ERE club My original point was that not all networths are created equal. It's just a nice summary but it doesn't really reveal the particulars of someone's financial status.

Consider, e.g. Mark Zuckerberg whose NW (48 billion) is mostly tied up in facebook stock. His fortune stands and rests with how FB performs. On top of that he can't convert that FB stock into cash and expect to end up with the same amount of NW as he nominally has now. As soon as he starts selling, FB price will drop ... likely he won't be able to find enough sellers to absorb all the shares he holds. It's not unlikely that maybe 30 billion in cash (or treasuries) is worth more than 48 billion in FB shares if the goal was to actually spend the money on something else.

Compare Zuckerberg to old-money wealth. Here a lot of the wealth is tied into an intricate web of cash flows and possessions. In many cases it's even hard to estimate just what the NW is. However, old-money becomes old because it's quite robust. Such a person always has some money coming in from somewhere. They're not just the founder and CEO of one company. They own many companies. They're on the board of multiple companies. They have well-connected friends. They own politicians (local or national).

I'd somewhat compare the different kinds of wealth both to investment methods, gardening methods, and FIRE strategies.

Level 1: The garden only grows potatoes. Success rests on how the potato harvest turns on. In terms of investing, it's like having your money in a single issue. In terms of FIRE, it's like a consumer with a lot of money. Representative billionaire: Mark Zuckerberg.

Level 2: The garden contains of random rows of different plants. The rows are diversified. If beans fail, maybe potatoes still do okay. It could be that the entire harvest fails if nothing was planted for a surprise drought. In terms of investing, this is like diversification. In terms of FIRE, it's the person with a side-gig or three and a bag of tricks to save money. Representative billionaire: Warren Buffett.

Level 3: The garden contains non-random guilds where things are planted to support each other and energy flows are deliberate managed. In terms of investing, this is like a hedge fund. In terms of FIRE, it's the web of goals approach to advanced (deliberate side-effect, reverse fishbone) contingency planning. Representative billionaires: Koch brothers.

The higher the level, the more robust/resilient the strategy is and the less money is likely needed.

It's probably a bad idea to rank levels ... but it seems pretty obvious that these three approaches are quite different from each other.

[Scott 2]

I'm certainly well over the 7k a year per person. A dumb townhouse purchase in my mid twenties set a floor for living expenses that immediately puts me over. Work commute alone is 3k a year. The government takes several multiples of the 7k mark each year.

These are expenses that are locked in for the near term and/or afford me high income, so I am good with them for the time being. The townhouse is my most regretted purchase, but I believe staying put is optimal for now, despite it being the source of most of my "optional" recurring annual expenses.

That all reads like excuses. The reality is I'm hedonistically adapted to certain luxuries I adopted pre-frugality. Getting the money to pay for them is easier than letting them go. When saving a year's living expenses every few months, it's hard to care about leaking a couple thousand here or there. Even less so when it is justified as making one more year full time quite pleasurable.