The 28 year old retiree

[oddballstocks]

I listened to a podcast with him a few months back.  Seemed like an interesting guy.  He admits that his plan doesn't really work with a family of more than one kid.  He seems realistic and flexible. He rants about riding bikes, then says "but if you have more than a kid you can't."

 

What podcast is that? I've never heard him say that about number of kids, or biking, and looking at the MMM forums, it seems like people with all kinds of numbers of kids have done what he did (this guy retired at 33 with 3 kids: http://rootofgood.com/category/parenting/ ).

 

Seems like it would just require some adjustments (working a bit longer to have more money, or being a bit more frugal, or a mix of both, all taken into account by this math: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ ). Same with biking -- people in Amsterdam and Copenhagen bring multiple kids around daily without problem, there are all kinds of solutions, up to huge cargo bikes that you can move a fridge with (MMM wrote an article about a bike trailer that he bought, and he moved construction materials around with it) when kids aren't old enough to bike by themselves to just buying multiple bikes when they can. Not that biking is necessary to retire (I don't), it just helps save tons of money and improve quality of life.

 

It was a podcast with Tim Ferriss.  I have no idea when it was originally from, maybe past year, but I listened in June.  The conversation was interesting, a lot of it focused on how his following was cultish.  He said that in general what he wrote on the blog was more extreme than what he'd do in real life.  And that this thing is almost a thought provoking platform.

 

I've seen the cargo bikes.  My brother has one.  He also lives in an area that's bone flat with sidewalks.  I live in an extremely dense, hilly area with no sidewalks.  I'm not taking two kids on my bike on a road with zero shoulder with blind curves where people are whipping around at 45mph.  I've been hit on my bike, it's not fun.  It isn't uncommon for there to be a few bike deaths around here each year.

 

That's cool for that guy with kids.  But like I said above that isn't something I want.  I actually enjoy working and being a productive member of society.  It's fun to create things of value for others.  I derive satisfaction out of it, it's also a challenge that's enjoyable.

[Jurgis]

I had a pool too. One night at about 2am, i was waked up by water splashes. I got up and found a family of recoons, a mother and her two babys playing in my pool.

 

And doesn't this sight pay for the pool?  8)  :D

 

 

I have a bird bath. Does this count?

[CorpRaider]

Zero chance Mr. MM lets you off the hook from "his plan" if you have more than one kid.  He's had at least two guest posters discuss retiring early while suffering from mass breeding. 

 

He might let you off from using bike transportation almost exclusively...I would also note that I definitely saw either mom or dad and two kids on a bike more than once in Amsterdam on my most recent visit. 

 

He would also totally endorse continuing to work at a job you love.  He's actually targeting consumption and promoting stoicism and rationality more than any particular financial course of conduct.

[Liberty]

I listened to a podcast with him a few months back.  Seemed like an interesting guy.  He admits that his plan doesn't really work with a family of more than one kid.  He seems realistic and flexible. He rants about riding bikes, then says "but if you have more than a kid you can't."

 

What podcast is that? I've never heard him say that about number of kids, or biking, and looking at the MMM forums, it seems like people with all kinds of numbers of kids have done what he did (this guy retired at 33 with 3 kids: http://rootofgood.com/category/parenting/ ).

 

Seems like it would just require some adjustments (working a bit longer to have more money, or being a bit more frugal, or a mix of both, all taken into account by this math: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ ). Same with biking -- people in Amsterdam and Copenhagen bring multiple kids around daily without problem, there are all kinds of solutions, up to huge cargo bikes that you can move a fridge with (MMM wrote an article about a bike trailer that he bought, and he moved construction materials around with it) when kids aren't old enough to bike by themselves to just buying multiple bikes when they can. Not that biking is necessary to retire (I don't), it just helps save tons of money and improve quality of life.

 

It was a podcast with Tim Ferriss.  I have no idea when it was originally from, maybe past year, but I listened in June.  The conversation was interesting, a lot of it focused on how his following was cultish.  He said that in general what he wrote on the blog was more extreme than what he'd do in real life.  And that this thing is almost a thought provoking platform.

 

I've seen the cargo bikes.  My brother has one.  He also lives in an area that's bone flat with sidewalks.  I live in an extremely dense, hilly area with no sidewalks.  I'm not taking two kids on my bike on a road with zero shoulder with blind curves where people are whipping around at 45mph.  I've been hit on my bike, it's not fun.  It isn't uncommon for there to be a few bike deaths around here each year.

 

I've listened to the Tim Ferriss interview and I don't remember that, might have to listen again to see what that was about.

 

My go-to primer about him is now this talk:

 

He definitely admits that he has a writing persona, but that's pretty clearly what it is when you read his stuff. He talks about "badassity", "mustachanism", "punching yourself in the face" and such, but that's just adding entertainment value and memorability to the delivery (which could've been bone-dry and nobody would've paid attention). I think the principles underlying the persona are sound and that he applies them in his life, and he's helped a lot of people realize that they had an option other than 9-5 until 65 available for their lives. A friend of mine recently met him for a bike ride and they chatted for maybe 20 minutes and he said that he was the most down-to-earth guy ever.

 

As for bikes or early retirement/financial independence, of course it's not for everyone, and it'll be harder or easier for some people in some contexts. I just think everyone should be aware that it's a possibility, rather than just unthinkingly doing what everybody else does.

 

I'm not trying to convert anyone to FIRE, I just dislike it when the whole concept is misrepresented by people who obviously have never taken the time to understand it (I'm not talking about you, to be clear) and think it's all about clipping coupons and lowering the thermostat while it's in fact about understanding what makes you happy in life and that we live in such a super-wealthy society that it's pretty easy to live very well on just part of that wealth and accumulate the surplus to buy back your own time rather than spend it on crap that doesn't make you happier.

 

That's cool for that guy with kids.  But like I said above that isn't something I want.  I actually enjoy working and being a productive member of society.  It's fun to create things of value for others.  I derive satisfaction out of it, it's also a challenge that's enjoyable.

 

Ha, if you think the only way to be a productive member of society is to get a paycheck, that's too bad. I'm fine being productive in different ways (which are probably adding more value than 95% of wall street, an industry that mostly destroys value). If your own work happens to be what you most want to do with your life, consider yourself lucky, but spare a thought for the millions (billions) who don't have that luck or are wired with different aspirations and get their fulfilment elsewhere.

[CorpRaider]

That's right.  He would just submit that you seriously consider whether buying that new Escalade every four years would make you happier than donating several hundred thousand dollars to your favorite charity when you near the end of your line.

[boilermaker75]

 

In terms of exercise and eating being the end all be all, it's a myth.  Luck and genetics play a role.  I'm very skinny, healthy, exercise daily (run, bike), had a stroke at 35.  I'm fine, still running.  My doctor said my heart is in perfect condition, model of health, said it doesn't matter, these things are sometimes random.  Knew another guy, athlete, perfectly healthy had leukemia in his 20s.  All the biking in the world wouldn't stop that.  And likewise have a friend who is grossly overweight, outside of one sports related injury has zero health problems.  So yes, when looking at stats and people as a group exercise is good, I agree.  But there is a giant dice roll involved too.  Maybe you get through life healthy, maybe not, you can't just say "since I ride a bike I'll never have a problem."  What if you get hit by a car?  Have a crash etc?

 

 

I am sorry you suffered a stroke at such an early age.

 

You have to have a large sample size, control group, double-blind study, etc. to make conclusions, rather than anecdotal. Like with everything, genes give us a certain propensity but how those genes are expressed is more important. You can control that expression with diet and exercise. Sure there will be some "unlucky" cases.

 

The US, and many parts of the world, have gotten into the current health epidemic because of poor scientific studies.

 

Ancel Keys cherry-picked his seven countries when he was looking for a link between fat and heart disease. He got himself on the nutrition board at the AHA. He got massive backing from the NIH. He aggressively fought any studies that contradicted his and his connection with the NIH led to reduced funding, or no funding, for researchers who obtained conflicting results.

 

(Keys didn’t follow his own diet suggestion yet he lived to 100. Also he is the K in k-rations.)

 

That saturated fat causes heart disease became dogma, and still is. It is just the opposite. There is little evidence that fat causes heart disease.

 

A leading cause of metabolic syndrome, type II diabetes, dementia, heart disease, and cancer is eating a diet with a lot of sugar and carbohydrates, a low-fat diet.

 

Type II diabetes and dementia are largely preventable with the right diet and exercise. They are two of the three costliest diseases in the US. You cannot fix the health care cost problem with insurance because you will still have the costs of these diseases. You can fix it with life style changes, which will greatly reduce the occurrence of these diseases.

 

I agree you can encounter a health issue no matter how healthy your life style. But if life style will reduce those chances by a factor of 10 I am going to adopt that life style, which I have.

 

I do not eat sugar, junk food, or processed food. I eat a high fat diet, lots of eggs! I put heavy cream in my coffee. (Butter would be even better but I haven’t been able to bring myself to trying hot-buttered coffee.) I exercise almost every day for an hour. I am 64, I have never been on any medication, have low blood pressure, and my weight is about what it was when I was 20, maybe a couple of pounds less. My decline has been so slow that I haven’t noticed it. I really don’t think I feel much different than when I was 20. I do Tae Kwon Do and can still kick over my head. I routinely do an hour work-out on an elliptical, concept II, Nordic Trak, etc.

 

Edit: Yes the last part about myself is anecdotal. But there are many well-done scientific studies that show the link between good health and exercise, and a low-carb, no sugar diet.

[valcont]

It was a podcast with Tim Ferriss.  I have no idea when it was originally from, maybe past year, but I listened in June.  The conversation was interesting, a lot of it focused on how his following was cultish.  He said that in general what he wrote on the blog was more extreme than what he'd do in real life.  And that this thing is almost a thought provoking platform.

 

That's cool for that guy with kids.  But like I said above that isn't something I want.  I actually enjoy working and being a productive member of society.  It's fun to create things of value for others.  I derive satisfaction out of it, it's also a challenge that's enjoyable.

 

You nailed it Nate. It is a cult. And he makes big money out of these suckers. Last time I checked, his website generated $500k from the clicks. Not only that, these idiots spend thousands of dollars to go to retreats and discuss his "philosophy" !!! If you do feel the need to read his/any FI blog on a regular basis, the first thing you should do is stash your money in the index funds because you have very poor money management skills.

 

It takes about 10 minutes to understand the concept of frugality. His only contribution is that he made frugality sounds cool,at least in the minds of his followers. They don't call themselves cheapskates , they see themselves as awakened and everyone else as someone who haven't gotten/understood the message yet. Not true . And this constant focus on nickel and diming doesn't make you a badass. Makes you lazy, meek and risk averse. So don't attempt stock picking/entrepreneurship either. You are going to lose.

 

Finally here is an article that captures the spirit of this cult and his founder. A very sad commentary on the regressive lifestyle. I especially feel bad about that kid who'll grew up constantly feeling deprived and judged.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/mr-money-mustache-the-frugal-guru

 

 

 

 

 

[Liberty]

It was a podcast with Tim Ferriss.  I have no idea when it was originally from, maybe past year, but I listened in June.  The conversation was interesting, a lot of it focused on how his following was cultish.  He said that in general what he wrote on the blog was more extreme than what he'd do in real life.  And that this thing is almost a thought provoking platform.

 

That's cool for that guy with kids.  But like I said above that isn't something I want.  I actually enjoy working and being a productive member of society.  It's fun to create things of value for others.  I derive satisfaction out of it, it's also a challenge that's enjoyable.

 

You nailed it Nate. It is a cult. And he makes big money out of these suckers. Last time I checked, his website generated $500k from the clicks. Not only that, these idiots spend thousands of dollars to go to retreats and discuss his "philosophy" !!! If you do feel the need to read his/any FI blog on a regular basis, the first thing you should do is stash your money in the index funds because you have very poor money management skills.

 

It takes about 10 minutes to understand the concept of frugality. His only contribution is that he made frugality sounds cool,at least in the minds of his followers. They don't call themselves cheapskates , they see themselves as awakened and everyone else as someone who haven't gotten/understood the message yet. Not true . And this constant focus on nickel and diming doesn't make you a badass. Makes you lazy, meek and risk averse. So don't attempt stock picking/entrepreneurship either. You are going to lose.

 

Finally here is an article that captures the spirit of this cult and his founder. A very sad commentary on the regressive lifestyle. I especially feel bad about that kid who'll grew up constantly feeling deprived and judged.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/mr-money-mustache-the-frugal-guru

 

Showing your ignorance once again.

 

btw, he's been transparent about how much money he makes from the website, and how he wants to donate it from charity and is keeping it separate, and he's been transparent about how much his family spends each year (usually around $25-30k iirc, and that includes spending weeks on vacation in Hawaii).

 

He's organized some retreats to have fun with like minded people, nobody has to spend a cent on them and almost nobody does (there's maybe 20-30 people attending). It's not sold as something you need to buy to get the message (pretty sure he doesn't make money from it), it's a fun thing he organized, and he's not selling any books or DVDs or anything. All his content is free, all the forums are free. All the money is made from credit card referrals because if banks want to pay you a ton for clicks on your website, you'd be stupid not to do it and then figure out something good to do with the money.

 

It's clear that what is going on is that you think the situation is "A" when it's actually "B", and to you "A" is stupid and a scam, so you're calling it out.

 

But it's really not "A". Its something else.

 

It's not just frugality repackaged, it's not about selling books and courses and retreats. It's the opposite of being weak and meek and lazy -- the lazy/weak/meek choice is doing what everybody else is doing rather than taking the road less travelled and putting some thought and effort in reaching non-comformist goals that you think will make you happier than the one-size-fits-all mainstream path.

 

It's one guy who wrote (with style and panache) about his own experience, and it helped a lot of people realize that more consumption isn't the path to happiness and that you need a lot less money to stop working because of this http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ and that less stress, more control, better relationships, more freedom, more opportunities to try new things, to help those you love and spend time with them, etc, were all more important than a fancier car or a bigger TV or granite countertops. It's about developing a mindset more than any specific tactical tricks. Maybe to you it's all so self-obvious and simple that it's not worth discussing, but value investing is also very simple, yet very hard and subtle and the psychology of it is the most important aspect, hence why it's discussed every day all around the world.

 

I got that message long before MMM existed (got it from a 90s book called Your Money or Your Life) and today my life is much better than it would be if I was still on the 9 to 5 (and I loved my job and it had tons of freedom and I mostly worked from home). To each their own, but even if it's not at all for you, your characterization of what this is is totally off mark.

 

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/10/26/notes-on-giving-away-100000/

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/19/2016-spending/

[rb]

She did not accumulate $2mm starting from 0 by just "having a wall street" job and investing her money well. 

 

This is the standard comp path for someone who 2 years banking, 2 years PE, and then goes to one of the very best hedge funds.  the 2+2 to HF is the new 2 years banking to HF path.  Again, this is for the top 1% of people that start investment banking jobs at 22.  all of the compliance, SS research, middle market shitty jobs etc etc that say they work on "wall street" won't come close to these numbers. Again, this would be something like Goldman M&A to KKR to one of the big Tiger funds.

 

IB analyst 1: 85+ 50

IB analyst 2: 85 + 80

PE analyst 1: 125 + 150

PE analyst 2 125:  + 225

HF analyst 1: 175 + 300

HF analyst 2: 175 + 400

 

This is $2mm in pretax comp over 6 years.  In New York, even with max 401k deferrals this nets around $1.1mm in post-tax income.  More importantly, half of it comes in the last 2 years so there is minimal time to compound.  Even if she is only spending 30k/year, she has maybe $250k saved the first three years.  It would take some pretty heroic IRR assumptions to get to $2.25mm post tax savings.

 

There are execptions - young guys who come up with home runs get absurd bonus checks each year.  My guess is that she started a lot higher than 0 or this is fabricated to drive page views for her blog.

 

The sanctimonious frugality of most of these people drive me absolutely freaking nuts - particularly if they claim to like investing.  The vast majority of people who are actually good at this could have stopped working a long, long time ago.  They do it because they love it, have philanthropic goals, feel a sense or responsbility to LPs, etc.

The fox is being generous here. What he doesn't mention is that in order to get incomes like these you don't actually start from zero. Unless you come from a fairly well off family that can pay for the fancy schools you start at least a quarter million in the hole (half a mil for a couple) - these people went to Harvard. My guess is that they're leaving some details out. Because if such details were to be included that would make the story less sexy and therefore less click baity.

 

I'll agree with the fox that the sanctimony of these people is really annoying. After reading a few blogs from some young early retirees you get the gist of the formula:

 

1. Have a high paying job early on. (usually this also implies a high level of education)

2. Partner/marry early ideally to some who also has a high income

3. Your partner/spouse needs to share you vision

4. Live well below your means

5. Invest savings, have a heavy equity component

6. Catch a really good bull market

7. One you reach you financial goal start a blog to tell people about it. Ok, this one isn't mandatory.

 

The thing that struck me reading these blogs though is that they're pushing ETFs really hard - there's a lot of talk about ETF tickers. Now the high education, partner/spouse, living frugally is already mastered by these people. However none of them seem to devote any of their newfound time to learn more about finance and investing which is just as crucial to their goals as all the other things.  ???

[rkbabang]

Regarding MMM

 

I listened to a podcast with him a few months back.  Seemed like an interesting guy.  He admits that his plan doesn't really work with a family of more than one kid.  He seems realistic and flexible. He rants about riding bikes, then says "but if you have more than a kid you can't."  I think the problem are his followers.  They're taking what he says at face value.  Things like "If you have kids you're an idiot because you can't retire."  Or "cars are stupid, ride bikes."

 

Here's a rough analogy.  I have a pool, I love the pool.  We swim 100+ days a year.  The amount of enjoyment I've derived from relaxing, swimming, and playing with my kids in there isn't measurable.  Yet we have friends who come over and say things like "Did you know this will detract from the value of your house?"  Or "pools make zero financial sense."  Ironically they're over enjoying it.  But they're just parroting some common wisdom type line without ever thinking.  They clearly don't apply this line of thought to their own life, they drive luxury cars, or spend on big vacations.  But somehow a pool is a bad financial mistake because someone somewhere said so.

 

I look at it like this, your house isn't a tradable asset.  It's to be enjoyed, so do things that create enjoyment.  We have and it's working.  But I thought about this on my own.  I'm not just parroting some line I heard somewhere.  Factually yes, I would be better off just paying $5/head to go to a community pool.  But we wouldn't swim as much and it wouldn't be as fun.  Financially we'd be best off living in a tent because then we'd have zero operating costs, but somehow people doing that are shunning.  Isn't that the logical conclusion of this line of thought?

 

This is like MMM.  He thinks through these things on his own it seems.  But his followers are just parroting these little snippets.  Are pools for everyone?  No.  But for some they make sense.  Will I recoup the money I've spent on it?  No.  But will I recoup the time I spent mowing the lawn, or trimming the bushes, or painting?  No.  That's all just part of having a place to live, they're all sunk costs.

 

Life as measured by dollars and cents is cold, unforgiving, and unfulfilling.

 

+1.

 

I don't have a pool now, but when we built our 2nd house in 2003 we spent about $90K putting in a pool/pool area/pool house.  We used and enjoyed that pool for the next 9 years and the people who bought our house for 40K over what it was appraised for said that the pool area and the kitchen were the reasons that they had to have it.  Yes, we didn't get our $90K back, but so what, we sold the house the first week it was on the market and we enjoyed living there for 9 years, my kids were young and grew up with an awesome pool.

 

You can't take money with you, if you can't use some of it to enjoy yourself in the short time you are here, then what's the point?

 

I had a pool too. One night at about 2am, i was waked up by water splashes. I got up and found a family of recoons, a mother and her two babys playing in my pool.

 

 

I had one of these auto covers (http://www.coverpools.com/covers-for-new-pools/) so that uninvited neighbors couldn't just jump in.  But that was nice of you to share your pool with the neighborhood residents.

 

[Ross812]

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/19/2016-spending/

 

Be honest with yourself about that spending.

 

The 400k house he lives in would cost someone 23k/year - excluded

 

I bought a Nissan Leaf for roughly $14,000 after all costs. This was $9,000 more than I got for selling the old Scion xA. Is this spending? Well, I definitely would not have bought it if it weren’t for the blog (it served as a strong form of advocacy) and I think it may have actually made a noticeable difference in US Leaf sales numbers – which was my main purpose. Sure is a nice car, but we barely use cars for personal purposes (I had to become an Uber driver in order to even get enough drive time to properly test the car!)

 

New Car - For the blog - 14k excluded <-probably helps with gasoline costs too.

 

Still self-insured for the primary house. Please don't complain about this in the comments section ;-)

 

No homeowners insurance - 1.2K (doesn't make much sense not to insure a 400k asset and potential liability)

 

I built this nifty studio, spending about $30,000 in the process. Is it spending, or investment? Since it increases the value of the house by much more than that amount, and I will be selling this house and moving somewhere else eventually, I chose to treat it as investment. On the other hand, spending money on repairs, changing paint colors, gardens, or swimming pools would count as spending to me, since these items are more likely to be recurring and/or not recouped at the time of sale.

 

Built a studio apartment to work on his blog - 30k excluded

 

Travel as Mr. Money Mustache (trips to Ecuador, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and a couple of other places) added up to about $4,000 between flights, hotels and food. None of this is stuff I would have done for personal fun, but it may have burned me out enough that I skipped or missed other personal trips (camping, etc) that would have increased my travel spending.

 

Travel to meet with blog fans - 4k excluded

 

 

Wife started a jewelry business - 20k excluded

 

Higher Income is forcing me to pay full-price for health insurance. Health insurance pricing comes on a sliding scale from “nearly free” below $25,000 in family income, up to full price for incomes over $80,000 (see subsidy calculator)

But then again, our family business (of which we are employees) pays these premiums on our behalf, so they are pretty painless

 

Talks about high ACA expenses but it seems pretty clear his business is paying his insurance premiums. The 6720 in his spending appears to be HSA contributions.... He is just calling this his premium. He seems to promote using ACA subsidies for early retirees (I am moral opposed to this)

 

Claimed his spending is 30k

 

23K + 14k + 1.2K+ 4K + 30K + 20k + whatever insurance costs for a HNW family (call it 12k) + 30k in claimed spending

 

So he is living the equivalent lifestyle of someone who spent 135k. Not super frugal. Just another charlatan.

 

 

[LC]

In late 2016, I gave away $100,000 of this blog’s income to various charities, with much more to come. Having a business that makes and gives away money probably reduces the need to give away my real retirement savings.

 

It sounds big if you think of it as “Four years of the family’s spending!”, or “An entire University education for a kid!” but only medium if you consider it’s only a mid-range Tesla. And downright small at less than a quarter of what this blog earned last year (before tax at least), which I managed via only the occasional typing of shit into the computer.

 

The dude's blog on frugality is clearing somewhere around 500K/year. Sounds like I need to start a blog.

[Liberty]

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/19/2016-spending/

 

Be honest with yourself about that spending.

 

The 400k house he lives in would cost someone 23k/year - excluded

 

I bought a Nissan Leaf for roughly $14,000 after all costs. This was $9,000 more than I got for selling the old Scion xA. Is this spending? Well, I definitely would not have bought it if it weren’t for the blog (it served as a strong form of advocacy) and I think it may have actually made a noticeable difference in US Leaf sales numbers – which was my main purpose. Sure is a nice car, but we barely use cars for personal purposes (I had to become an Uber driver in order to even get enough drive time to properly test the car!)

 

New Car - For the blog - 14k excluded <-probably helps with gasoline costs too.

 

Still self-insured for the primary house. Please don't complain about this in the comments section ;-)

 

No homeowners insurance - 1.2K (doesn't make much sense not to insure a 400k asset and potential liability)

 

I built this nifty studio, spending about $30,000 in the process. Is it spending, or investment? Since it increases the value of the house by much more than that amount, and I will be selling this house and moving somewhere else eventually, I chose to treat it as investment. On the other hand, spending money on repairs, changing paint colors, gardens, or swimming pools would count as spending to me, since these items are more likely to be recurring and/or not recouped at the time of sale.

 

Built a studio apartment to work on his blog - 30k excluded

 

Travel as Mr. Money Mustache (trips to Ecuador, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and a couple of other places) added up to about $4,000 between flights, hotels and food. None of this is stuff I would have done for personal fun, but it may have burned me out enough that I skipped or missed other personal trips (camping, etc) that would have increased my travel spending.

 

Travel to meet with blog fans - 4k excluded

 

 

Wife started a jewelry business - 20k excluded

 

Higher Income is forcing me to pay full-price for health insurance. Health insurance pricing comes on a sliding scale from “nearly free” below $25,000 in family income, up to full price for incomes over $80,000 (see subsidy calculator)

But then again, our family business (of which we are employees) pays these premiums on our behalf, so they are pretty painless

 

Talks about high ACA expenses but it seems pretty clear his business is paying his insurance premiums. The 6720 in his spending appears to be HSA contributions.... He is just calling this his premium. He seems to promote using ACA subsidies for early retirees (I am moral opposed to this)

 

Claimed his spending is 30k

 

23K + 14k + 1.2K+ 4K + 30K + 20k + whatever insurance costs for a HNW family (call it 12k) + 30k in claimed spending

 

So he is living the equivalent lifestyle of someone who spent 135k. Not super frugal. Just another charlatan.

 

Oh boy, another "gotcha"...

 

If you have a ton of excess cash and want to play with it, that's not cheating because there are no rules except self-imposed ones. The point is that he could live his lifestyle very well on what he saved when he retired and still have excess, and that it doesn't cost much to do basically all that he wants to do, and that the frugal lifestyle leads to excess cash over time so there's usually plenty enough to do fun things like finance a hobby down the road. He's transparent about all the things he includes and excludes and the reasons for them, and people can judge for themselves.

 

In previous posts he talked about the impact of the paid off house and how that capital counted in his nest egg, and that he could've decided to not pay off the house and probably gotten higher returns on that capital, but he preferred the peace of mind instead.

 

He retired many years before his blog ever became a thing, but now that it is, should he just shut it down and not do anything cool with the excess cash out of some purity thing so that internet commenters like you won't try to nitpick the trees and miss the forest? I don't think he's even touching the blog cash yet, since his own initial capital has kept growing and he's done carpentry projects and house flipping and stuff like that because he enjoys it and made money that way (it's not cheating! This type of retirement means you don't HAVE to work for money, but you can if you want to.. the point is control over your life, not "do as little as possible and don't ever earn money again").

 

His goal isn't to spend as little as possible to show up others on being the frugalest frugalist or whatever. If that was the case, there's a ton of stuff he could do differently to spend less. His goal is to maximize how happy he is with his life, and his core lifestyle happens to not require that much cash. But if tomorrow he wants to buy matching Teslas for himself and his wife, what does it matter? The ideas still make sense. Attacking him because he's a special case is like saying that the principles of value investing doesn't work because regular investors aren't Ben Graham or Warren Buffett. There's a whole forum of people doing what MMM did: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com

 

btw, are you counting as recurring things like building a studio and buying a car?

 

[stahleyp]

I'd like to know why he isn't giving more to charity? More money doesn't make him happier, right?

 

For what it's worth, I agree with a lot of his principles. I used to live on $8,000 a year, after all. :P

 

However, if he's pulling down $500,000 and giving away $100,000...his principles seem a little insincere.

[bizaro86]

 

 

So those things...exercise, not eating junk etc are on their own each an order of magnitude more powerful in terms of health effects than improved healthcare. You would be better off forgetting about the small business and just spending that time riding your bike.

 

I have two little kids and a family history of juvenile cancers. I need drug coverage for catastrophe purposes no matter how much I bike (which I do). I don't smoke or drink, but am probably 25 lbs too heavy and enjoy sugary treats. YMMV. I actually wish I could get catastrophe only drug coverage. I'd be perfectly happy to pay out of pocket for dental/incidental prescriptions/vision, and would love a 5k deductible drug-only plan. The blue cross option here for individuals has a 10k prescription max. If one of my kids gets a rare cancer, that might cover the first month.

 

I do agree with whoever posted above that FIRE is never a one person deal. My parents paid for my schooling, and that got me a good job at 22. They also cosigned my first mortgage, and the boom era gains from that house probably gave me a 7-10 year financial headstart. I will probably either start working or start a real business once my kids are in school, because I can't see sitting around my house all day by myself. My wife is quite clear that she wants to go back to work part time when they are in school, I think primarily for social reasons.

[Ross812]

His goal isn't to spend as little as possible to show up others on being the frugalest frugalist or whatever. If that was the case, there's a ton of stuff he could do differently to spend less. His goal is to maximize how happy he is with his life, and his core lifestyle happens to not require that much cash. But if tomorrow he wants to buy matching Teslas for himself and his wife, what does it matter? The ideas still make sense. Attacking him because he's a special case is like saying that the principles of value investing doesn't work because regular investors aren't Ben Graham or Warren Buffett. There's a whole forum of people doing what MMM did: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com

 

btw, are you counting as recurring things like building a studio and buying a car?

 

 

I did count his studio and car purchase. I am just pointing out his accounting is not exactly gaap. He took 135k in equivalent spending, did some fuzzy math, and said minus all this one time recurring, business vacations, imputed Mortgage, and company supplied health care, I spent 30k. Is his real name Michael Pearson?

 

I read through several of his blog posts and looked at the forum. It seems he has a habit of using fuzzy logic to support his positions.

 

Killing you $1000 grocery bill

The true cost of commuting

Bicycling: the safest form of transportation

 

These articles are full of math that sounds good at face value but doesn't really compute. I agree with the message and have no problem with him enjoying his blogging windfall. Just don't pass it off as living your 20-30k low impact non consumer lifestyle.

 

 

 

 

 

[Liberty]

I'd like to know why he isn't giving more to charity? More money doesn't make him happier, right?

 

For what it's worth, I agree with a lot of his principles. I used to live on $8,000 a year, after all. :P

 

However, if he's pulling down $500,000 and giving away $100,000...his principles seem a little insincere.

 

He said he will donate it to charity, he's just learning how, because he wants to be effective, and in the meantime, it keeps compounding. Same reason why Buffett and others have waited and made efforts to make sure their donations will be effective and not wasted.

 

In any case, even if he didn't donate it, it's his money. I find it interesting how everybody is so quick to spend everybody else's money and judge them for what they do with it.

 

It would be insincere if he lived a life of laziness and overconsumption, full of stress and unwanted obligations, while preaching the concepts of frugality, DIY, low-stress and freedom. But piling up extra money is totally aligned with everything he teaches. It's then up to him to do what he wants with it (he's also recently decided to help improve his town by opening a co-working space: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/08/02/introducing-the-mmm-world-headquarters-building/ but I'm sure people here will complain that he shouldn't do that because he's retired and it costs money... Meanwhile, he's doing cool stuff that he likes and he's always doing it himself and in the most cost-effective way even if he could pay up and hire people while he sits in a lazy-boy -- why? because it brings more life satisfaction to work hard and accomplish things, as long as they're the things that you want to do and not things that others force you to do.)

[Liberty]

His goal isn't to spend as little as possible to show up others on being the frugalest frugalist or whatever. If that was the case, there's a ton of stuff he could do differently to spend less. His goal is to maximize how happy he is with his life, and his core lifestyle happens to not require that much cash. But if tomorrow he wants to buy matching Teslas for himself and his wife, what does it matter? The ideas still make sense. Attacking him because he's a special case is like saying that the principles of value investing doesn't work because regular investors aren't Ben Graham or Warren Buffett. There's a whole forum of people doing what MMM did: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com

 

btw, are you counting as recurring things like building a studio and buying a car?

 

 

I did count his studio and car purchase. I am just pointing out his accounting is not exactly gaap. He took 135k in equivalent spending, did some fuzzy math, and said minus all this one time recurring, business vacations, imputed Mortgage, and company supplied health care, I spent 30k. Is his real name Michael Pearson?

 

I read through several of his blog posts and looked at the forum. It seems he has a habit of using fuzzy logic to support his positions.

 

Killing you $1000 grocery bill

The true cost of commuting

Bicycling: the safest form of transportation

 

These articles are full of math that sounds good at face value but doesn't really compute. I agree with the message and have no problem with him enjoying his blogging windfall. Just don't pass it off as living your 20-30k low impact non consumer lifestyle.

 

The point is he can live very well on very little, that proves the concept. If he wants to do stuff for his blog like buy an EV and review it and potentially influence thousands of others to go electric, or add value to his house that he'll more than recoup later when he sells because it improves his quality of life, more power to him. He's been doing this for a very long time, as have many others, and it works. When you have more surplus money than you know what to do with it (even without his blog income, as he's always been way below what his passive income provided for over a decade and the blog is just in the past few years), it's absolutely fine if you have spiky years, as long as whatever you spend actually makes your life better and isn't just mindless consumption that doesn't budge the needle and keeps you ratcheting up on the hedonistic treadmill:

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/27/exposed-the-mmm-familys-actual-spending/

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/16/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2011-spending/

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/01/21/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2012-spending/

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/01/12/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2013-spending/

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/01/16/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2014-spending/

 

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/04/01/mmm-spending-2015/

[CorpRaider]

I think if you have a strongly negative reaction to him or his message, you should consider taking a moment to ask yourself why.

[RichardGibbons]

I think if you have a strongly negative reaction to him or his message, you should consider taking a moment to ask yourself why.

 

I'm actually curious about this, because pretty well every time I've seen financial independence discussed on an Internet forum, it has a certain percentage of people violently opposed to the idea, with sound and fury way out of proportion to the topic.  I mean, the core idea is to spend money on the things that you consider valuable and will genuinely improve your life, and eliminate expenditures on things that don't meet these criteria.

 

I'm not sure why that would be a controversial idea at all.  So where's the anger coming from?  Envy?  Fear over people choosing to live a different life?  Shame that one didn't make the same decisions?  A feeling of being judged?  I find it fascinating.

[Cigarbutt]

"I think if you have a strongly negative reaction to him or his message, you should consider taking a moment to ask yourself why."

 

Interesting. To do this internal processing requires to make oneself more vulnerable. Not easy.

 

Just to add personal opinion (I retired very early), when I meet ex-colleagues, many complain bitterly about the same old issues but, at the same time, voice indirectly (sometimes not so indirectly) negative comments about those leaving...

 

I submit that the live and let live attitude is useful in value investing. Forget about the crowd and do your own thing.

[Jurgis]

I think if you have a strongly negative reaction to him or his message, you should consider taking a moment to ask yourself why.

 

I'm actually curious about this, because pretty well every time I've seen financial independence discussed on an Internet forum, it has a certain percentage of people violently opposed to the idea, with sound and fury way out of proportion to the topic.  I mean, the core idea is to spend money on the things that you consider valuable and will genuinely improve your life, and eliminate expenditures on things that don't meet these criteria.

 

I'm not sure why that would be a controversial idea at all.  So where's the anger coming from?  Envy?  Fear over people choosing to live a different life?  Shame that one didn't make the same decisions?  A feeling of being judged?  I find it fascinating.

 

I think you are way exaggerating "sound and fury way out of proportion to the topic".

 

Even in this topic most discussion was not opposing the idea itself. Most of the discussion was about possible/alleged misrepresentation of some claims and about the proponents of idea ignoring some issues (mostly medical costs in US).

 

The misrepresentation discussion becomes quite heated because both sides feel that they are misrepresented (haha), attacked , etc.

 

Edit: I would agree that both sides get defensive and dismissive about the other side's claims and issues raised.

 

Peace and beautiful retirement.  8)

[Liberty]

I think if you have a strongly negative reaction to him or his message, you should consider taking a moment to ask yourself why.

 

I'm actually curious about this, because pretty well every time I've seen financial independence discussed on an Internet forum, it has a certain percentage of people violently opposed to the idea, with sound and fury way out of proportion to the topic.  I mean, the core idea is to spend money on the things that you consider valuable and will genuinely improve your life, and eliminate expenditures on things that don't meet these criteria.

 

I'm not sure why that would be a controversial idea at all.  So where's the anger coming from?  Envy?  Fear over people choosing to live a different life?  Shame that one didn't make the same decisions?  A feeling of being judged?  I find it fascinating.

 

You'll see the same negative reactions when the idea of curing the diseases of aging is discussed.

 

I think that when something is bad but it feels inevitable, the human mind rationalizes that it's actually a good thing. So you have all kinds of people arguing that getting frail and sick and dying is actually good, because if you didn't die this quickly, life wouldn't have meaning, there would be overpopulation, etc. It's like if everybody gets hit in the head with a baseball bat once a week, every week, and there's nothing you can do about it. After a while people would rationalize why the bat is a good thing and why would anybody try to remove it, and how dare people say that whatever negative side-effects removing the bat would have would be smaller than the problem of the bat itself?

 

This is similar. Most people feel they have no other choice than to spend most of their waking hours at a job, so when other people talk about other ways to arrange your life, the reflex is often "it's not possible, it can't work, they're lying, having a job is actually really great, etc" as well as distorting the picture so that the cons are inflated and the pros are deflated.

 

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

[writser]

I think nobody here (or almost nobody) is against the idea of early retirement. I am a practitioner myself. What I don't like is that a (supposedly) 28-year old girl with a working husband and a $2m bank account opens a blog with hardly any content but stuffed with affiliate links. Her website is not designed to help people - the primary goal of that website is to generate income for her. She is not referring you to the lowest-cost broker, or even giving an honest comparison of brokers: she is referring you to the broker with the best affiliate program (i.e. the one where she makes the most money if you sign up). Same for web-hosting. She pretends to teach frugality but at the same time she tries to lure readers into paying for stuff that might not even be in their own interest. That makes you an asshole in my opinion, same category as tv-priests and pick-up artists.

 

I'm not saying all gurus do that (I actually appreciate Jakob Lund Fisker) but a lot of them seem to place their self-interest above the interest of their followers and I am very skeptical about their claims and advice. It's easy to blog about frugality and 4-hour work weeks if you have a 7-digit net worth and make money blogging, giving talks and writing. Unfortunately that is not the path to financial independence for 99.99% of the population.

[Liberty]

Yeah, but people will find plenty of negative things to say about MMM and Fisker just the same as they do with her, so it's clearly not about her.

 

Frankly, I haven't even looked at her site except for a quick skim. There are tons of people with varying levels of quality in any field, just like there are tons of people writing about value investing and they're not all good. I'd rather talk about the principles and the why of it all than try to nitpick one person's attempt (with only partial information), gaining nothing in the process.