Your Neighbors Are Retiring in Their 30s. Why Can’t You?

New York Times takes a detailed look at the FIRE community.

It’s not the wealth that makes it worthwhile. It’s the fact that there’s nothing we really HAVE to do, and nobody we HAVE to report to.

free link:



I have seen this play before. This is where we begin to get into bubble bubble toil and trouble. All the younger folks end up having margin debt a few years from now.

There’s a recent phenomenon that rankles me. No, worse, it annoys the kcuf out of me. It’s the phenomenon of lazy journalism. Today’s crop of journalists, by and large, don’t do any of the legwork anymore. Certainly not at all like journalists used to do. Instead they simply hang out online, find an interesting story ALREADY being discussed (for weeks, months, years, decades even like this one) and then simply appropriate it straight from online and turn it into “their” story. Look at this one, for example, the author even took the stock symbols DIRECTLY from online social media WITH the traditional “$” in front of the symbol as first used on twitter to allow instant single click stock quotes.


How to retire in your 30s: First, write an app that generates $250,000/month.


There is no financial incentive, for the most part, for that type of journalism. I would not blame them per se. But you are correct, that long form journalism and in-depth research is hard to find any more. I just blame the economics of that type of work rather than the practitioners.

It’s also not “recent”. This was an excellent book on the problem, which came out in 2005.


That’s not true the better journalists write best selling books. Right now rising to the top would be easy pickings

Nixon, then Reagan. Enough said.

The author certainly seemed to pick the very worst example for FIRE. Only worst example would be to use a lottery winner and then say, “you can do it too!”

Most popular comment:

That lead photo is pretty much the exact opposite of what FIRE means to most people who are pursuing it. Totally sends the wrong message.

Who at least learned of a new term: FatFIRE - which in all honesty seems redundant. If you are “Fat” (have more that enough saved to live the rest of your life) then of course you have already achieved financial independence.


Actually, anyone who early retired 30 years ago and followed the 4% rule should be “FatFired” by now.

Someone who maintained a 60/40 allocation now has more than 4 times his starting balance after 30 years of withdrawals. If you let the stock allocation rise as your portfolio grew (i.e., if you’re now withdrawing 1% of assets, do you really need 40 years’ worth of spending in fixed income?), you’ve got double or triple that.