4% rule in countries with a welfare state

[Ego]

The problem with this approach is the opportunity cost. There is no retirement. I'm retired and I really enjoy it.

An opportunity cost is only a cost if there is a missed opportunity. It strikes me that the only thing better than retiring early is figuring out a way to make money doing the thing you would do if money were no object.

T...but we all get old.

Everyone who lives gets old. Not everyone who lives gets medicalized.

[steveo73]

An opportunity cost is only a cost if there is a missed opportunity. It strikes me that the only thing better than retiring early is figuring out a way to make money doing the thing you would do if money were no object.

I agree with you. It just wasn't that simple for me. I've been doing jiu-jitsu for close to 20 years. I just got off the mats. Sometimes I teach. I don't really charge, I just say can I have a free rash shirt or gi or whatever. I know a lot of guys who have started their own gyms though. They are teaching and doing what they love.

It's pretty good. On top of that I fear you could end up hating it but they typically tell me they love it.

I'm in a good spot though and a major reason I'm in a good spot is because I completely ignored what I consider the insane advice of trying to get a really low WR.

I like my approach because it was achievable within a reasonable time frame (20 years of working/saving and I have 3 kids), it's pretty safe and not working is great. If you have to work a bit longer so be it.

Everyone who lives gets old. Not everyone who lives gets medicalized.

This is a within reason idea. My dad is 80 and he has cancer on his leg. He has to get radiotherapy 5 days a week for something like 6 weeks. This is not a big issue so no need for sympathy. I don't know how you stop something like that happening and you are going to need care. He also has to have a geriatric doctor. I see old guys walking in my area with helpers.

I basically agree that if you live really well you can avoid a lot of stuff but I don't think it's realistic to avoid health care completely or better put you may die earlier or have too many health issues.

My dad also recently had his shoulder re-done. I thought this was stupid and he could die. It's worked out much better for him.

Interestingly the whole family was paranoid that he would die if he got COVID. He got it but only really knew because he tested himself. Mum had it as well.

I know a couple of guys that are younger than me and they take TRT or even fighters who take steroids. I don't do this and don't see myself doing this. At the same time I'd take something if it was proven to make your healthier/live longer and the side effects were manageable.

[classical_Liberal]

US TIPS got another big bump today. Currently in the US, a TIPS ladder guarantees a 4% WR for 30 years (in low tax bracket, hence assuming moderate spending). Obviously geopolitical risk and a resulting default of US gov't debt would be the only failure.

Add to this US SS or private pensions (hence the welfare state implication), discounted for benefit reduction. Someone aged 40, who can fund all expenses with a full SS at 70 (discounted by 25% or so), is FI @4%WR by all but the most disastrous standards.

Not resilient by ERE standards as it requires faith in the US Gov't as only means of support, but by boglehead standards, a virtual guarantee.

Interesting times.

[unemployable]

US TIPS got another big bump today. Currently in the US, a TIPS ladder guarantees a 4% WR for 30 years. Obviously geopolitical risk and a resulting default of US gov't debt would be the only failure.

Well, those and your personal inflation rate outpacing CPI-U. I presume you mean you can go 100% 30-year TIPS and have a nonnegative residual after 30 years, which does surprise me and at least shows what the Fed is trying to do is working on some level. Specifically, making fixed income a legitimate alternative to stonks.

You don't want to be shifting your own goalposts either by lengthening the time horizon or taking on additional expenses, but isn't that always the case.

Not resilient by ERE standards as it requires faith in the US Gov't as only means of support, but by boglehead standards, a virtual guarantee.

I'd say it fails resiliency as it implies one has framed both the "problem" and "solution" in 100% monetary terms.

Interesting times.

This I have no argument with.

[classical_Liberal]

Well, those and your personal inflation rate outpacing CPI-U. I presume you mean you can go 100% 30-year TIPS and have a nonnegative residual after 30 years.

Correct, except that one would do better with a ladder thanks to yield curve inversion. EDIT TO ADD: A ladder also minimizes risk to massive change to real yields in a any given year for the required principle reduction taken for spending. Over spending, or regional inflationary drift is a risk in any plan, so should not be distinguished here unless the implication is that CPI-U is invalid (an entirely different discussion).

I'd say it fails resiliency as it implies one has framed both the "problem" and "solution" in 100% monetary terms.

Again correct, my boogleheads, ERE distinction was just a fun representation of the same concept.