[keiferski]

That kind of just illustrates my point. In order to FIRE at 55, you're looking at a difficult time for a decade+, from 40-50/55. Who's to say you won't drop dead a month into your retirement at 55?

All the research and anecdotes I've come across illustrate how staying active and working (in whatever way possible) extend lifespan more than being retired and purposeless. So personally, I think FIRE only makes sense if you're retiring to pursue a greater goal that otherwise wouldn't be possible. And for most cases, this goal is still achievable without FIRE, if you get a little creative.

As I said above: better to figure out what your ideal life is and work at it now. IMO, FIRE is really only a rational option if you're young, have a high income, and are OK with living cheaply/into DIY. Even then, assuming that the markets/civilization in general will be predictable for the next 50-100+ years seems rather naive, especially with recent events (COVID).

[b_t_s]

Totally agree. There is risk of death but also risk of failure(recession, medical issues, etc...) and the risk/reward analysis goes downhill fast as you age. I was on track for FIRE. Then the great recession happened and that became semi-on track. Then I got married to someone who wasn't FIREing and had a kid. Game over. I'm now too old(late 30s). The guaranteed hardships required to achieve FIRE are totally not worth it for the potential extra years of retirement. For a few decades of retirement as a recent grad, yea. For a few extra years of retirement as a married with kids, nope. I can't subject my kid to that, and the payoff is too little, too late, too uncertain. We're focusing on living our best life now, and if I manage to achieve some degree of FIRE by virtue of high salary and not being wastefull then yay, bonus. If not, oh well. The transition from FIRE lifestyle to living our best life now lifestyle has been fantastic, joyful, and totally life altering.