Can I afford to quit

Whiterose23

Nebulous2 said:

Whiterose23 said:

Nebulous2 said:

Whiterose23 said:

Nebulous2 said:

Whiterose23 said:

What would happen if their child, or children turned out to be a budding Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Pippa Funnell or even Lewis Hamilton! Where would the funds for those activities come from or would you just say to your child “Sorry son, you’ll just have to become a footballer like everyone else”

Ultimately, talent shines through and if they've got what it takes, they'll get there anyway .... and if they have a special talent they could apply for a scholarship (if the above unlikely scenario becomes a reality).

Actually there's nothing could be further from the truth. The world is full of talented people who never put in the work to rise to the top. It's worth reading up on Andy Murray's early history for instance. Some people make it in spite of not having the same opportunities, but they have to work even harder. 

A journalist once said to one of the top golfers that he had been very lucky. He agreed and said, you know something? The more I practice the luckier I get. 

I think this is a matter of opinion; there are as many stories of hard working people gaining success without having the bank of mum and dad behind them. Of course every parent wants to help and we do, but it isn’t a bad thing either for a child to work for what they want to achieve, including helping to finance their own dreams, rather than having it handed to them on a plate.
The OP’s view isn’t clear on this and whether he has considered it in his numbers, but early retirement could also benefit his child enormously has he will be around more to help them/nurture them. I think a balance would be ideal.

Can you name some?
Andy Murray was clearly very talented, but had a huge amount of support and worked very hard. 
Lewis Hamilton's family sacrificed a huge amount to help his early career. 

It's reasonable for families not to have that level of aspiration for their children - going for broke can end in disappointment - but to achieve at an elite level well below the Olympic / national team level takes a great deal of family support for most people. 

Your argument has switched however - the point I initially questioned was:
"Ultimately, talent shines through and if they've got what it takes, they'll get there anyway." 

Quite simply - no they wont. If they don't have the dietary support, the coaching, the elite training facilities and the commitment to ferry them all over the country for competitions then they have more chance of winning the lottery than doing well.

All sports are not created equal. There is a reason why rich countries have the 3 day eventers who can afford to run a string of horses, and poorer countries have the runners who can succeed with much fewer resources. 

Sorry are we only talking about sports? I thought we were talking about success generally.
Of course parents provide support; I'm not claiming they don't, but how can you plan your finances for a 1 year old child around the fact that they might become the next Andy Murray? All kinds of sport and success stories come from rich backgrounds, there's no doubt about it, and it is an advantage (sadly) but what is wrong with expecting a child to work hard towards reaching their goals and helping to fund their dreams?
I've paid for hobbies over the years for my kids, and ferried them all over the place as a single parent on an average wage, but I didn't commit myself to spending thousands trying to turn them into the next sports star. Why would I do that? They have to have the drive to achieve that themselves and from where we stood as parents, our kids were more interested in the taking part than becoming wildly successful. I guess it's all down to the parents' ambitions for their children. I guess you are funding your children's sporting hobbies?
If the OP wants to retire early and spend time raising their child then wouldn't that be a good thing?
As for a list of successful people who have made it through their own hard work, then here goes:
David Beckham, Mike Tyson, Pele, Mo Farrah (sport)
Sajid Javid (politics)
Oprah Winfrey, Gary Oldman (Celebs)
Chris Dawson, Richard Branson (entrepreneurs)

I could go on.

The original comment from you was in relation to sportspeople and that is what I have been referring to all along. 
Of those sportspeople you have mentioned - the only one I'd say who made it largely on his own was Mike Tyson. He had a chaotic background, showed a talent for fighting and was adopted by a boxing trainer, who helped him on his way. The rest all had a great deal of family support. They may have been from relatively modest backgrounds, but had a great deal of commitment from their families and others. 

I'm beyond the point of bringing up children, but spent a fair bit on travel, musical instruments and getting them classes and tuitions for things they were interested in. I've no regrets about any of that. 

My only foray into high level sport was swimming, where I did a bit of coaching and was dismayed that it was a money machine which was committed to the top level participants above all else. We didn't keep it up very long. It left me with a great deal of admiration for how hard these children worked however. Doing 7 or 8 pool sessions a week, with 4 mornings of 5.45 am starts at 12-13 years old was a massive commitment.

I remember one girl who was very talented, but her father worked away and there were younger children at home. Her mother literally begged other parents to pick her up and take her to the pool in the mornings, but the arrangements never lasted very long, and she dropped out. It's extremely unlikely anyone is going to achieve in swimming without a massive family commitment in addition to some exceptionally hard work from them. 

Going back to the original post - which has got lost here, all people were trying to say was that his budget is tight for bringing up a child. Hobbies, clothes and food will take more than he expects. 

My original suggestion was that he get a part-time job, possibly on lower pay, to achieve more of a life-work balance. 

I would agree with this. My focus on commitment was on financial input, rather than anything else. I don't think all sports have to cost a fortune and for years I paid for my two children to do gymnastics. Then my son went climbing, then joined a rugby team. Both did swimming. But not all at once; I could only afford a couple of hobbies at a time, but they thoroughly enjoyed themselves however didn't show any signs of being outstanding. If they had I would have encouraged it further but not sure about finances.

I have a family member who was a very keen swimmer when young and a swimming teacher part-time as an adult, and she coached all of her children through swimming, including strict 6am training before school and training sessions after school. They didn't really mix with school friends - only those at the swimming club as she felt they were a better influence. They swam at county level for a while. She even had a training pool installed at her home, which they practised in for a while.
Now all three are grown up and left home and although there's no doubt the benefit to them physically is good, none of them have an interest in competitive swimming any more as it was kind of her ambition rather than theirs, which is a shame. The pool is now filled in. 
I just think if the OP's child shows a certain talent, then the OP could decide at the time whether to fund it, and as you say, a part-time working situation would strike a middle ground.

UpZord

Generally nice experiences (eating out, fun stuff, hobbies, nicer holidays at least sometimes), education (e.g. 3-4 years at university and not being saddled with student loans after) and having help for house deposit, weddings etc.. while not requsite, do add up in costs. So while OP has done really well to get to a very good state, and enough security to go part-time, retrain in another career, take a year out etc, i'm not sure it's wise to quit work entirely. i totally get that "had enough of work" sentiment though. 

billy2shots

A quick comment on your car situation.
A 6 year old Leaf and a 12 year old runaround is not how I would safeguard my finances come retirement. A big(ISH) motor spend might not be too far away. 

Lostweekend

NM1 I was in a very similar position to you at 42. I had one child under 2. Hated my job (or what it had become) and decided to quit as had some level of savings that could last for a few years at our low level of spend and my wife was happy to continue to work.  I had no plans to return to that role or to retire (basically no plans, other than to regroup). After 2 years out I was offered a job that appealed to me and I took it.

Fast forward to 2021 and I now have 3 teenagers and our household spend (even as we try to control it) is much higher, even for the usual stuff. Uniforms, after-school activities and sports clubs all add up. In addition, one child was identified for a talent squad and that is very expensive - she can't get a Saturday job if she is training 4 nights a week and competing at weekends. Then there is university and any support we might have to give in the next few years.  I feel I was lucky to get back into work and it might have been a disaster if I had not done so.

I had no real understanding at 42 what life would throw at me in the next 15 years. I do know it was right to leave the job and there might be something much better for you out there if you have the time and space to look.  When you are in the depths of struggling with work it can feel like a depression and cloud you view of the options out there. I wish you well in your decision.

Sun-Is-Fun

Lots of people advising you not to do it here, but I would say 'go for it' if you feel that way. Who knows how long you will be here for and you have to try and enjoy yourself in the time you have got. Hopefully, this will be for a lot of years until old age, but you could be diagnosed with terminal cancer in five years. You just don't know what life could throw at you. If doing this would make you happier, then it is the right decision. If retirement isn't for you once you've tried it or you run out of money, then you can reassess at that point in time.

Whiterose23

Sun-Is-Fun said:

Lots of people advising you not to do it here, but I would say 'go for it' if you feel that way. Who knows how long you will be here for and you have to try and enjoy yourself in the time you have got. Hopefully, this will be for a lot of years until old age, but you could be diagnosed with terminal cancer in five years. You just don't know what life could throw at you. If doing this would make you happier, then it is the right decision. If retirement isn't for you once you've tried it or you run out of money, then you can reassess at that point in time.

Excellent answer.

MacMickster

Sun-Is-Fun said:

Lots of people advising you not to do it here, but I would say 'go for it' if you feel that way. Who knows how long you will be here for and you have to try and enjoy yourself in the time you have got. Hopefully, this will be for a lot of years until old age, but you could be diagnosed with terminal cancer in five years. You just don't know what life could throw at you. If doing this would make you happier, then it is the right decision. If retirement isn't for you once you've tried it or you run out of money, then you can reassess at that point in time.

The big problem being, if the OP's money runs out when he is in his 50s and he now has a costly teenager to support, he may find that getting back into work at that age with a 10 or 12 year gap on his CV might not be particularly easy.

GeordieGeorge

MacMickster said:

Sun-Is-Fun said:

Lots of people advising you not to do it here, but I would say 'go for it' if you feel that way. Who knows how long you will be here for and you have to try and enjoy yourself in the time you have got. Hopefully, this will be for a lot of years until old age, but you could be diagnosed with terminal cancer in five years. You just don't know what life could throw at you. If doing this would make you happier, then it is the right decision. If retirement isn't for you once you've tried it or you run out of money, then you can reassess at that point in time.

The big problem being, if the OP's money runs out when he is in his 50s and he now has a costly teenager to support, he may find that getting back into work at that age with a 10 or 12 year gap on his CV might not be particularly easy.

Yes, if we were guaranteed to be able to walk back into a good job I think an awful lot more of us would take the odd break while young and healthy.

The reality is that there’s every chance that the OP ends up collecting shopping trolleys in the middle of winter, with an aching back and sore knees to find his boy’s swimming lessons whereas had he spent a few more years in a ire enjoyable, higher paid job now he could just take the money from his savings.