FIRE? Unless you hate or are bad at your job, isn't work the best part of life?

jim8888

I liked my job and was made redundant from it at 50. As a FIRE adherent I decided that was it for me because I really fancied the change of lifestyle. However, after about a year, I felt I was not contributing to anything fulfilling in the way that I found work to be, so I went back to a lower level job in the same industry. I was there 5 years, which flashed by, and I enjoyed it too. I was again made redundant this year in March, but I've taken a totally different view to retirement this time, embracing the lifestyle and not giving myself a hard time about "not contributing" or "skiving". So, in my view, both retirement and work are, to an extent, a state of mind. I would say that the better prepared you are for retiring, with specific plans on what you want to do, the better it will be. And the more financially secure you believe you are makes a big difference too. That five years extra I worked made a much bigger difference to me, when it came to the psychological side of money, than I thought it would. I'd less years to cover and more money to cover it with, so it felt like a double whammy. 

zagfles

itwasntme001 said:

Albermarle said:

middlewife said:

marlot said:

Everyone has different motivators.  If you gain happiness by working, that's great.  If you gain happiness by not working, that's great too.

To me, it's not the number of years of retirement that matters.  But rather, the number of good-health years.

Spot on, I retired yesterday on my 59th Birthday. I will get a DB pension in a year but we have enough savings for me to to go now. OH is the stellar opposite. Work is his identity, 60 hour week working from home, plus weekends; he's gained 2 stone, high blood pressure and I fear will go the same way of many of the patients I dealt with. Every week someone else in their 50s had a stroke, heart attack, cancer or serious mental health issues. That was the end of the retirement they never got to and most of them didn't see it coming. Too many people believe they are indispensible, if work is your identity, what on earth are you going to do in retirement, therefore why would you retire (sad);  for some, the opposite is true, work is an unhappy means to an end and a wage packet and they count the days. Some are only happy when they are working for a variety of reasons, others are happiest when not working. Work often makes you cash rich and time poor, retirement often has the opposite effect, it's not how much time you have, but what you choose to do with it that will make you happy or frustrated. No one on their deathbed (and I've sat at a few) ever says "I wish I'd spent more time at the office".......

These comments are good, but probably some reality checks needed.
Firstly people do die in their 50's , 60's etc with no time to enjoy the benefits of retirement. We all know someone who worked until 65 and then died a few months later . However the statistics show that this is a minority, and the average life expectancy for a man in his 50's is actually between 83 and 88 ( depending on whose figures you use ) . As it is an average this means 50% will live longer than this, and for women you can add on a couple of years.

You are also right that some are only happy when working and some  are only happy when they stop work.
However my guess is that the majority are somewhere inbetween . Happy/wanting  to work when younger , a bit 50:50 in middle age and eventually reach a point where not working looks more attractive. Plus of course many have to continue working until they are older,  as they can not afford not to. 

No one on their deathbed (and I've sat at a few) ever says "I wish I'd spent more time at the office".......

On the other hand you could also say ' No one on their deathbed ever says ' I wish I had spent more years on the dole /living off benefits /counting the pennies'

There is about a 1% chance of someone who is 60 dying within a year.  Whilst that is not anywhere close to meaning that it is likely, it is also not insignificant when you consider the fact that it is death we are talking about.

That 1% remains the same roughly for 10 or so years.  But rises fast as one goes into their 70s.

Life expectancies are just averages and like any average of population statistics say, there will be a distribution around this average.

I think you now will understand why so many chose to quit in their 50s, particularly if there are underlying health issues or family histories.  Even if it means "being on the dole".

Yes, and it's not just the risk of dying, it's the risk of ill health meaning that all the stuff you wanted to do when retired is no longer possible or practical, or not in the same way with the same level of enjoyment anyway. If for instance your dream is to go diving at the great barrier reef and you have a stroke, develop diabetes, asthma etc you may find it's no longer possible, safe, or practical, or difficult to get insurance which covers it, or companies willing to take you.

itwasntme001

zagfles said:

itwasntme001 said:

Albermarle said:

middlewife said:

marlot said:

Everyone has different motivators.  If you gain happiness by working, that's great.  If you gain happiness by not working, that's great too.

To me, it's not the number of years of retirement that matters.  But rather, the number of good-health years.

Spot on, I retired yesterday on my 59th Birthday. I will get a DB pension in a year but we have enough savings for me to to go now. OH is the stellar opposite. Work is his identity, 60 hour week working from home, plus weekends; he's gained 2 stone, high blood pressure and I fear will go the same way of many of the patients I dealt with. Every week someone else in their 50s had a stroke, heart attack, cancer or serious mental health issues. That was the end of the retirement they never got to and most of them didn't see it coming. Too many people believe they are indispensible, if work is your identity, what on earth are you going to do in retirement, therefore why would you retire (sad);  for some, the opposite is true, work is an unhappy means to an end and a wage packet and they count the days. Some are only happy when they are working for a variety of reasons, others are happiest when not working. Work often makes you cash rich and time poor, retirement often has the opposite effect, it's not how much time you have, but what you choose to do with it that will make you happy or frustrated. No one on their deathbed (and I've sat at a few) ever says "I wish I'd spent more time at the office".......

These comments are good, but probably some reality checks needed.
Firstly people do die in their 50's , 60's etc with no time to enjoy the benefits of retirement. We all know someone who worked until 65 and then died a few months later . However the statistics show that this is a minority, and the average life expectancy for a man in his 50's is actually between 83 and 88 ( depending on whose figures you use ) . As it is an average this means 50% will live longer than this, and for women you can add on a couple of years.

You are also right that some are only happy when working and some  are only happy when they stop work.
However my guess is that the majority are somewhere inbetween . Happy/wanting  to work when younger , a bit 50:50 in middle age and eventually reach a point where not working looks more attractive. Plus of course many have to continue working until they are older,  as they can not afford not to. 

No one on their deathbed (and I've sat at a few) ever says "I wish I'd spent more time at the office".......

On the other hand you could also say ' No one on their deathbed ever says ' I wish I had spent more years on the dole /living off benefits /counting the pennies'

There is about a 1% chance of someone who is 60 dying within a year.  Whilst that is not anywhere close to meaning that it is likely, it is also not insignificant when you consider the fact that it is death we are talking about.

That 1% remains the same roughly for 10 or so years.  But rises fast as one goes into their 70s.

Life expectancies are just averages and like any average of population statistics say, there will be a distribution around this average.

I think you now will understand why so many chose to quit in their 50s, particularly if there are underlying health issues or family histories.  Even if it means "being on the dole".

Yes, and it's not just the risk of dying, it's the risk of ill health meaning that all the stuff you wanted to do when retired is no longer possible or practical, or not in the same way with the same level of enjoyment anyway. If for instance your dream is to go diving at the great barrier reef and you have a stroke, develop diabetes, asthma etc you may find it's no longer possible, safe, or practical, or difficult to get insurance which covers it, or companies willing to take you.

Yes exactly.  Mortality tables don't tell you any of the other bad stuff in life.

zagfles

chiefie said:

Pollycat said:

RogerIrvine said:

Tenure to a paying post seems to be an invaluable perk. For example septuagenarian Paul Dacre has recently demurred from re-applying 

for the prestigious chair of the kingdom's media regulator to be parachuted into a more lucrative private sector post. In his 80th year, great football manager Sir Alex Ferguson continues as Manchester United's Global Ambassador, after a stroke. 

Acknowledged that us in the middling MSE crowd don't have that leverage, still, isn't it better to have the focus of a job? I may be wrong and obviously no disrespect intended  but get the impression that tax-considerations or, even worse, a failure of imagination lies behind this FIRE goal.

Writing as someone who took early retirement 18 years ago, I much prefer to focus on the things that interest me - although I did enjoy my job, I enjoyed my hobbies much more.

Work was never the best part of my life.
Work enabled me to do the things I enjoyed.

Maybe we weren't as frugal as some people with FIRE goal, but we always lived within our means. But we lived well.
When work colleagues were holidaying in 5* AI resorts, we stayed in small hotels.
When colleagues were driving BMW or Audi, we had a Yaris.

Totally this ☝️  Who decided that 5 days/week work for 50+ years as the best way to exist ?  It's easy to fall into the trap of consumerism to enable other, very rich people, meet  their own needs.

it's time to get off the roundabout 

The people that do it decided it! I think the main thing is to get value from your spending, cut out expensive superficial fluff that doesn't really add much value and you could dramatically reduce your spending, resulting in achieving FI much earlier.

For instance just from recent threads here, some people spend £60 a month on their mobile phone! Does a £1000 mobile phone really give you 5 times the value of a £200 one? I very much doubt it. Does flying business class really give you 3 times the value of flying economy? Does a £60k car really give you 4 times the value of a £15k one? Does a £2000 bike give you 10 times the value of a £200 one? Does a £200 michelin star meal give you 20 times the value of a £10 curry? Does a £14k package holiday give you more value than 6 self planned/cheap package holidays for £10k total? Do you really need a new outfit for every social event you go to? Does a £10k Rolex tell time 200 times better than a £50 timex?

I think once you free yourself from the myth that "you get what you pay for" and actually look at how much cheaper it is to achieve what you want to do without the superficial fluff, or without worrying about what others think, or trying to impress or show off to others, then you're almost guaranteed to achieve FI at a reasonable age.

I think it's far more about attitude to spending than it is to how much you earn. I know several people who earn far more than me but who will never achieve FI until state pension age, maybe not even then, because of their addiction to excessive spending mostly on superficial fluff which they think they "need". And I also know someone younger who's already retired, never had a well paid job, but whose spending is low so their requirement in retirement is low, not through denying themselves, just through having interests that aren't expensive. (similar to Sea Shell here, see the squirrelled nuts thread)

CloesUnc

zagfles said:

chiefie said:

Pollycat said:

RogerIrvine said:

Tenure to a paying post seems to be an invaluable perk. For example septuagenarian Paul Dacre has recently demurred from re-applying 

for the prestigious chair of the kingdom's media regulator to be parachuted into a more lucrative private sector post. In his 80th year, great football manager Sir Alex Ferguson continues as Manchester United's Global Ambassador, after a stroke. 

Acknowledged that us in the middling MSE crowd don't have that leverage, still, isn't it better to have the focus of a job? I may be wrong and obviously no disrespect intended  but get the impression that tax-considerations or, even worse, a failure of imagination lies behind this FIRE goal.

Writing as someone who took early retirement 18 years ago, I much prefer to focus on the things that interest me - although I did enjoy my job, I enjoyed my hobbies much more.

Work was never the best part of my life.
Work enabled me to do the things I enjoyed.

Maybe we weren't as frugal as some people with FIRE goal, but we always lived within our means. But we lived well.
When work colleagues were holidaying in 5* AI resorts, we stayed in small hotels.
When colleagues were driving BMW or Audi, we had a Yaris.

Totally this ☝️  Who decided that 5 days/week work for 50+ years as the best way to exist ?  It's easy to fall into the trap of consumerism to enable other, very rich people, meet  their own needs.

it's time to get off the roundabout 

The people that do it decided it! I think the main thing is to get value from your spending, cut out expensive superficial fluff that doesn't really add much value and you could dramatically reduce your spending, resulting in achieving FI much earlier.

For instance just from recent threads here, some people spend £60 a month on their mobile phone! Does a £1000 mobile phone really give you 5 times the value of a £200 one? I very much doubt it. Does flying business class really give you 3 times the value of flying economy? Does a £60k car really give you 4 times the value of a £15k one? Does a £2000 bike give you 10 times the value of a £200 one? Does a £200 michelin star meal give you 20 times the value of a £10 curry? Does a £14k package holiday give you more value than 6 self planned/cheap package holidays for £10k total? Do you really need a new outfit for every social event you go to? Does a £10k Rolex tell time 200 times better than a £50 timex?

I think once you free yourself from the myth that "you get what you pay for" and actually look at how much cheaper it is to achieve what you want to do without the superficial fluff, or without worrying about what others think, or trying to impress or show off to others, then you're almost guaranteed to achieve FI at a reasonable age.

I think it's far more about attitude to spending than it is to how much you earn. I know several people who earn far more than me but who will never achieve FI until state pension age, maybe not even then, because of their addiction to excessive spending mostly on superficial fluff which they think they "need". And I also know someone younger who's already retired, never had a well paid job, but whose spending is low so their requirement in retirement is low, not through denying themselves, just through having interests that aren't expensive. (similar to Sea Shell here, see the squirrelled nuts thread)

Well said!

MallyGirl

I'm another one that works to live - I do not live to work. I will be quitting as soon as I can convince OH that we have enough to do what we want to do with the liberated time. For now we are tackling some larger capital projects while we can still work to pay for them.
My job is OK as jobs go - it doesn't fill me with joy but I rarely hate it. Mostly I just resent it! I do hate the performance management rubbish, the never-ending management cascades about what a great company it is, the requirement to be constantly stretching ourselves when many would be happy just doing their job and doing it well, the fact that I have to negotiate time off rather than waking up to a beautiful day and being able to go out and enjoy it. It does pay reasonably well.
We have 2 close friends who are very poorly - one with terminal brain cancer at 56 and one with early onset dementia at 54. This is certainly focusing the mind on not working too long so we are able to enjoy retirement as you never know what is around the corner.

LV_426

zagfles said:

The people that do it decided it! I think the main thing is to get value from your spending, cut out expensive superficial fluff that doesn't really add much value and you could dramatically reduce your spending, resulting in achieving FI much earlier.

For instance just from recent threads here, some people spend £60 a month on their mobile phone! Does a £1000 mobile phone really give you 5 times the value of a £200 one? I very much doubt it. Does flying business class really give you 3 times the value of flying economy? Does a £60k car really give you 4 times the value of a £15k one? Does a £2000 bike give you 10 times the value of a £200 one? Does a £200 michelin star meal give you 20 times the value of a £10 curry? Does a £14k package holiday give you more value than 6 self planned/cheap package holidays for £10k total? Do you really need a new outfit for every social event you go to? Does a £10k Rolex tell time 200 times better than a £50 timex?

I think once you free yourself from the myth that "you get what you pay for" and actually look at how much cheaper it is to achieve what you want to do without the superficial fluff, or without worrying about what others think, or trying to impress or show off to others, then you're almost guaranteed to achieve FI at a reasonable age.

I think it's far more about attitude to spending than it is to how much you earn. I know several people who earn far more than me but who will never achieve FI until state pension age, maybe not even then, because of their addiction to excessive spending mostly on superficial fluff which they think they "need". And I also know someone younger who's already retired, never had a well paid job, but whose spending is low so their requirement in retirement is low, not through denying themselves, just through having interests that aren't expensive. (similar to Sea Shell here, see the squirrelled nuts thread)

All excellent questions! I spend £6/month on my mobile phone contract. I bought a reasonably priced, SIM free device. I've kitted out the rest of the family similarly. Bear in mind that households have multiple mobile phones, and the monthly costs sure do accumulate. I don't feel any loss whatsoever from not having a £1000 iPhone, plus higher monthly contract fees.

But when you say, does an item costing many times more than an equivalent cheap one provide value, it depends how you define value. For some people, image is the value. They would like to be seen driving around in that expensive car, or having that expensive watch on their wrist.

HCIMbtw

Expensive (financed) cars that are parked outside houses with mortgage/rental payments that probably cost less.. 

I can't bother myself trying to understand the mindset of this type of person

LV_426

HCIMbtw said:

Expensive (financed) cars that are parked outside houses with mortgage/rental payments that probably cost less.. 

I can't bother myself trying to understand the mindset of this type of person

Hehe! You're not alone there. If anything I've always had an aversion to spending money. It has served me well
I've got easier with spending as I age, but I know now that I've accumulated enough to be ok.
I would still have problems though with having such an expensive car parked on the drive, which costs more per month than my mortgage payment.

Albermarle

zagfles said:

chiefie said:

Pollycat said:

RogerIrvine said:

Tenure to a paying post seems to be an invaluable perk. For example septuagenarian Paul Dacre has recently demurred from re-applying 

for the prestigious chair of the kingdom's media regulator to be parachuted into a more lucrative private sector post. In his 80th year, great football manager Sir Alex Ferguson continues as Manchester United's Global Ambassador, after a stroke. 

Acknowledged that us in the middling MSE crowd don't have that leverage, still, isn't it better to have the focus of a job? I may be wrong and obviously no disrespect intended  but get the impression that tax-considerations or, even worse, a failure of imagination lies behind this FIRE goal.

Writing as someone who took early retirement 18 years ago, I much prefer to focus on the things that interest me - although I did enjoy my job, I enjoyed my hobbies much more.

Work was never the best part of my life.
Work enabled me to do the things I enjoyed.

Maybe we weren't as frugal as some people with FIRE goal, but we always lived within our means. But we lived well.
When work colleagues were holidaying in 5* AI resorts, we stayed in small hotels.
When colleagues were driving BMW or Audi, we had a Yaris.

Totally this ☝️  Who decided that 5 days/week work for 50+ years as the best way to exist ?  It's easy to fall into the trap of consumerism to enable other, very rich people, meet  their own needs.

it's time to get off the roundabout 

The people that do it decided it! I think the main thing is to get value from your spending, cut out expensive superficial fluff that doesn't really add much value and you could dramatically reduce your spending, resulting in achieving FI much earlier.

For instance just from recent threads here, some people spend £60 a month on their mobile phone! Does a £1000 mobile phone really give you 5 times the value of a £200 one? I very much doubt it. Does flying business class really give you 3 times the value of flying economy? Does a £60k car really give you 4 times the value of a £15k one? Does a £2000 bike give you 10 times the value of a £200 one? Does a £200 michelin star meal give you 20 times the value of a £10 curry? Does a £14k package holiday give you more value than 6 self planned/cheap package holidays for £10k total? Do you really need a new outfit for every social event you go to? Does a £10k Rolex tell time 200 times better than a £50 timex?

I think once you free yourself from the myth that "you get what you pay for" and actually look at how much cheaper it is to achieve what you want to do without the superficial fluff, or without worrying about what others think, or trying to impress or show off to others, then you're almost guaranteed to achieve FI at a reasonable age.

I think it's far more about attitude to spending than it is to how much you earn. I know several people who earn far more than me but who will never achieve FI until state pension age, maybe not even then, because of their addiction to excessive spending mostly on superficial fluff which they think they "need". And I also know someone younger who's already retired, never had a well paid job, but whose spending is low so their requirement in retirement is low, not through denying themselves, just through having interests that aren't expensive. (similar to Sea Shell here, see the squirrelled nuts thread)

I would agree with your comments but just to add a couple of my own 

I know several people who earn far more than me but who will never achieve FI until state pension age, maybe not even then, because of their addiction to excessive spending mostly on superficial fluff which they think they "need".
You could also add people who are not addicted to buying expensive superficial goods , but whatever they do money just seems to flow their fingers . Basically clueless ( or always too busy ) to look for good deals/negotiate  , or lending money to family and friends that does not get repaid etc etc

Does a £60k car really give you 4 times the value of a £15k one?
You just have to be careful not go too far in the other direction, as buying too cheap can cost money as well , and maybe a £15 curry does taste 50% better than a £10 one .