[falcolas]

Yeah, the MMM manifesto would never work for me - it basically says that I would have to be setting aside over 90% of my income (given my salary range), which wouldn't allow for things like a newer car, owning a house over 300 sq. ft., or traveling to Arizona to visit relatives.

Personally, I refuse to give up my life today for the possibility of a life tomorrow. There's too few guarantees that there will be a tomorrow.

[zrail]

That's not really what MMM espouses, from what I've been able to tell (I've actually spent the better part of the last month devouring his blog and the forums).

MMM's point is that, if you live well within your means and can save 50% of your income (however you choose to define that, but most people do after-tax), you can "retire" after a short number of years. "Retirement" is very much however you want to define it, but the core is that you don't have to work for money anymore, since your previous investments can take care of your lower-than-average expenses. Lots and lots of people are financially independent (don't have to work for money) and still work a normal job because they like it.

MMM promotes freedom, in the sense that you can change some small aspects of your lifestyle and in a short amount of time free yourself of the requirement to sell your time.

[falcolas]

> if you live well within your means

Which they define as no morgage. No car loans. No TV. "Fuck cleanliness". "Luxury is a weakness". Fix your own car. Don't use AC in Phoenix (?!).

> your previous investments can take care of your lower-than-average expenses

How can, to use MMM's numbers, 17 years of living on 50% income somehow support 50-70 years of living on that other 50%? His answer? Drop your spending by another 50-75%, and hope you can get 7% returns on your investment[0].

Even MMM isn't doing that. He's living currently on about 25k a year, which is a over 25% of his starting income, and certainly more than the 4% he advocates above (unless he was putting away $125,000 a year for those 5 years, in addition to paying off his $400,000 morgage). If he can't live by his own advice without selling his house, selling his family heirlooms[1], how does he expect others to do it?

> MMM promotes freedom

Freedom from what? Enjoying your working years? Personally, I spent many, many years living on less than $25,000 a year. It sucked, it's certainly not the life I want to "retire to".

[0]http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need... [1]http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/08/22/how_to_sell_silver...

[charlieflowers]

> He's living currently on about 25k a year, which is a over 25% of his starting income, and certainly more than the 4% he advocates above

Something is wrong with your math there (unless I am misunderstanding you). $25k is not more than 4% of his total savings. (In other words, he has more than $625,000 in his investment portfolio).

He exceeds his own advice, because to him it is not deprivation.

[mcdougle]

He actually has an article where he lays out how he went about saving before he retired, and he basically had $800k in liquid cash/investments before he retired.

But I don't think he actually saved the full $800k; he probably had quite a bit less than that, but with the power of exponential growth, looked at his statements one day and had $800k. It sounds like he also makes a bit of money doing odd jobs throughout the year, too, and since the $800k was more than enough for them to live off of in the first place, it's grown quite a bit since they retired. I doubt he's put any actual numbers out there, but he's hinted at the fact that he's got several million dollars in his investment portfolio now.

He talks about exponential growth a lot. The problem is, people don't really grasp the concept. For example, if you save $5 extra per week (instead of buying that Starbucks coffee on Friday, for instance), it doesn't really sound like a lot. But if you invest that $5 (MMM suggests index funds, which are pretty low-risk/low-growth -- so we'll use 6% annual growth here) you actually end up with about $3600 at the end of 10 years. Sure, this isn't a lot, and most of the growth occurs near the end of the time period, but it's $1000 more than it would be just sticking it in a savings account. MMM advocates a whole bunch of these little changes in your lifestyle, which add up over time.

While he does take it to the extreme, he states often that he's not telling people they need to do what he does.

[vinceguidry]

It's a false economy. You don't have to wait until you're financially independent to find meaningful work that you like doing. I still remember the day ERE Jacob decided to go back to work. He spent all this time justifying his decision. It wasn't the decision he had to justify, it was the previous five years or so he spent not doing work he loved and not making buttloads of money doing it.

The argument against work is that it's soul-sucking and meaningless. Well, you don't have to accept that. There's plenty of things you can do to make work fit into your life, rather than make your life fit into your work.

[zrail]

I don't think this is the kind of dichotomy you're making it out to be. Of course not all work is soul-sucking and meaningless. If you find something fulfilling and enjoyable, great! That's awesome! There's all kinds of options in life, and the great thing is that you don't have to pick just one. MMM seems to be about opening up more options by allowing you to not have to consider revenue in your decision making process.

[balls187]

What is the point of retiring early, if you're stuck having to pinch-pennies, cut-coupons, all to living within a very modest budget?

I have to do something with my time, so I might as well get paid handsomely for it.

[zrail]

> I have to do something with my time, so I might as well get paid handsomely for it.

There's actually an interesting component to that. Likely since you first started working you've never actually been in a situation where you don't need to sell your time in order to pay your expenses. I sure haven't.

But I've read a lot of stories from people who are currently in that situation, and the feeling of having to do something with your time and be constantly productive apparently fades over time. Not because they're bored, but because they're fulfilled by different things. Like, suddenly the household chores are fulfilling instead of burdensome.

Also, from what I've read very few people on the FIRE path waste time clipping coupons or pinching pennies. The whole point is to optimize lifetime overall happiness by strategically optimizing your spending and investments, monetarily and otherwise.

[balls187]

> Likely since you first started working you've never actually been in a situation where you don't need to sell your time in order to pay your expenses. I sure haven't.

Actually that's not true. When I was 28 years old, I quit my job, "retired" and traveled. It got old quick. I missed the challenges of solving engineering problems, the comradarie I have with coworkers, and the shared sense of purpose you get with work. I also realized that the one thing I could spend hours and hours doing in one setting was writing code. So I rejoined the "ratrace" and decided that I wouldn't be so consumed about "retiring."

Instead I subscribe to the "don't wait till you retire" to do the things you want to do. I want to travel, so I travel.

I live my life the way I want to. That includes working for a paycheck.

[andyidsinga]

>Instead I subscribe to the "don't wait till you retire" to do the things you want to do. I want to travel, so I travel.

This! I'm with you. why should I ever "retire"?

[vinceguidry]

> That includes working for a paycheck.

Paychecks are nice things, aren't they? You don't have to worry about when they're coming in or what's going to be on them, what you do for that paycheck is generally pretty fixed, they come with things like health care and employer 401k match. One could do a lot worse.

[zrail]

Fair enough. I made an unfair generalization and I apologize. I'm glad you found something you enjoy doing :)

[aidenn0]

MMM is living off an effective annual budget of $40k per year for a family of 3. That's roughly 45th percentile, so not that modest.

[balls187]

I haven't done much research into his life style, but I assume with $40k he and his family are able to do the things they want to do. Though that isn't necessarily the same things other families want to do.

[Modernnomad84]

I think it's fair to say that this is 95% of people's first reaction to hearing about MMM or similar bloggers.

Here's something you can take away from MMM even if you don't agree with everything he says.

Based on your post, these are the things that are important to you (or at least a start):

- Newer car - owning a house over 300 sq. ft. - Traveling to Arizona to visit relatives.

Maybe there are a dozen or so other things that are important to you that you could add to that list.

Now open up your bank account and find out how much spending happens on stuff that isn't important to you. 50%? 80%?

If you can dial down the spending that doesn't make you happy or the spending you do that just out of habit then you would be able to do more that does matter to you... nicer house, nicer car, more frequent and longer trips to AZ.