And for once, it seems either JLF wrote it himself, or the journalist actually paid attention.
Expect even MORE wealthy Danes during the next month or so

Also: That yard is GREEN!!!
Thinking back on my experience, I wish that this were the FIRST thing I read about ERE. To a normal person, "live on $7,000/year" implies a lot of sacrifice because that's what it takes without any frugal-skills. If this were more prominently displayed on the ERE blog, it might prevent misunderstandings about what ERE is really about."It's not about sacrifice or minimizing, as much as it's about being smart and very strategic with expenditures. It is also important to understand that all this stuff is not something you learn from one day to the next. It takes years to learn for me too, but with time it becomes better and better, so you get more and more for your money," says JLF.
Which aside from being married was also exactly where I was and what I projected when I wrote the blog or did you miss those years? I figured that humans would be to do the math and calculate that renting an RV lot in the bay area would easily allow me to rent/buy a stick house in most other places in the country for the same price, but I got a lot of flack for choosing the RV. Lots of stigma. Many people do consider one to be homeless. Many worry about safety. Lots of nasty comments on the interwebs. But I think our present situation looks nice and conventional enough now. Basically, the average person has certain boxes to fit people into and if that doesn't happen, then there must be something wrong with whoever they're looking at. A 65 year old retiree living in an RV is not considered homeless, but a 35 year old retiree is. People are not very logical.
Late 2009. It was the last chapter I started and the second last chapter I finished (#6 was the last one I finished... mainly because it was kinda boring to me being mostly about examples and technical details). I was originally intending to do a tour-de-force of all investment methods, similar to https://www.amazon.com/dp/1580622011/ ... Then I realized it would add 100-200 pages but not really add anything that hadn't already been said many times before in many other books. That's probably the academic habit of not saying something if you can just "reference it away". I already knew that I did not want to repeat the mistake of recommending something simple in terms of "what to invest in" because of its inherent dangers. This left the 50,000' overview with the main point about arbitrary income streams and savings rate calculations.Fish wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:23 am(*)@jacob - When did you first derive the chapter 7 equations relating savings rate and time to FI? I imagine the intuitive understanding must have come early with the Fortran program, but at what point did you work out the analytical solution for the first time? I think this will be of interest to future FIRE-historians.
Over the years, I've learned a lot about what works and what doesn't work in terms of teaching or explaining things. This is partially why I'm always going on about Wheaton, Dreyfus, MBTI, Kegan, Dunning-Kruger, Mt Stupid, Cipolla, etc. I've spent a lot of time trying to understand other humans because of their failure to understand me. When I was a young and naive blogger, I figured I could just concentrate on having good ideas and those who read them would pick them up without bias like good scientists so to speak. Like, "that an interesting idea/way of life... let me think about how this could be useful for myself". Whereas in reality it's more like "that doesn't look like the way I've been doing it ... and I don't understand how it works ...there's probably a catch ... I'm guessing it's an awful way of life/unhappy person/...". Basically, ways to prevent people's heads from exploding when they learn about new things.Fish wrote: Thinking back on my experience, I wish that this were the FIRST thing I read about ERE. To a normal person, "live on $7,000/year" implies a lot of sacrifice because that's what it takes without any frugal-skills. If this were more prominently displayed on the ERE blog, it might prevent misunderstandings about what ERE is really about.
I never made the connection between the CFA study and the development of the FIRE equations, but it makes so much sense! The first time I read the ERE book, the part where you derived the annuity formula seemed like a physicist rediscovering a common finance formula. Now it appears you provided it to allow a reader with a highschool level of math ability to be able to follow the derivation from start to finish. Since I live in a STEM-bubble my inclination would have been to skip all that with a reference to the formula for the partial sum of a geometric series... but I’ve since come around on that and think your approach was better.jacob wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:52 amCalculating it analytically became possible in 2009 because at the time I had been studying for the CFA and thus had recently learned about the NPV (and FV) of discounted moneystreams. [...]
Of course doing it analytically [for planning purposes] is overkill but it makes a strong/irrefutable point in terms of what 80% savings rates can do.
I think this is why your ideas have been able to enjoy moderate success during your lifetime. This reminds me of Thoreau whose reputation and fame were almost entirely posthumous. Despite the advantage of being connected to the American literary community, his first book sold poorly (fewer than 300 copies... and being self-published, the remaining 700+ unsold copies remained in Thoreau’s home). Even his masterpiece took 5 years to sell the 2,000 copies of its inaugural print run. IIRC the ERE book sold about 10x that number in the same timeframe.
Yes, I always thought [that showing the work] was the better approach than the traditional way of leaving the problem or derivation as an exercise for the reader. I'm full aware that most readers either never bother or get stuck doing the "exercise" without help from a TA insofar they're doing it on their own. I know from myself how much I appreciate authors who show enough detail of the derivation for me to follow along mentally.Fish wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:13 pmI never made the connection between the CFA study and the development of the FIRE equations, but it makes so much sense! The first time I read the ERE book, the part where you derived the annuity formula seemed like a physicist rediscovering a common finance formula. Now it appears you provided it to allow a reader with a highschool level of math ability to be able to follow the derivation from start to finish.