[neogodless]

> many people who get into FIRE commit themselves to a lifetime of slight misery instead of learning to be okay with living life when they can

Source for this assertion?

I've been in contact with various people at various points on the FIRE journey, and I haven't seen a lot that go "too far" towards being miserly, cheap, and miserable. Especially when they are high earners like the parent comment. They live lifestyles that may appear lavish, but are done while spending well below their means, because they are also investing in their future, while being mindful about spending today.

[square_usual]

The point of FIRE isn't that you invest in your future. I think it's unreasonable to say the opposite of FIRE is to save nothing, when it is in fact saving at good rate while aiming to retire in your 60s. My point is that aiming to retire early - like 20 years early, when you're in you're 40s and still eager to work - is likely to make your life miserable if you're the kind of person who actually enjoys work and can commit to goals like FIRE. That's what I've seen in communities I know where people FIRE. Hell, I know many people in my parents' generation who retired in their 60s and still want to work, and end up not dipping into their savings at all.

I'm sure there's tons of people who love being on a FIRE path. It's a lovely goal with self-reinforcing metrics that is easily gamified. And I bet your first year off work also feels great, which is why I encourage everyone to take a sabbatical every 10 or so years.

[rwmj]

The best part of FIRE is the Financial Independence bit. When my boss asks me to do something, I'll do it if I think it's a good idea, and ignore it otherwise, because what's the worst that can happen?

[neogodless]

> The point of FIRE isn't that you invest in your future

Huh? "Financial Independence, Retire Early" Sure sounds like you're saving money and investing it in such a fashion that at some future date, you're no longer obligated to do paid work -- before the traditional retirement age.

> I think it's unreasonable to say the opposite of FIRE is to save nothing, when it is in fact saving at good rate while aiming to retire in your 60s.

Again you confuse me. Most people do not save enough for a solid retirement in their 60s, so it does not seem like you can say that is the "opposite" of FIRE. The "opposite" is simply being financially dependent on your working income (at least) until traditional retirement age.

"Retire early" does not force you to "never work again" if it's something you desire. It means you have the financial independence and means to decide how to spend your time. If you really like working for money, being financially independent does not prevent you from doing it, and I can't see how it will make you miserable.