FIRE Movement (Financially Ind./Retire Early)

[he gone.]

I get where both you and Rabbit are coming from. As always the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think the point that Rabbit is trying to get across is that we train/teach kids in high school very little for the real world. Meaning you take some real basic courses, but no real life courses or financial courses in high school. So unless you have parents that guide you through, a lot of times you're some 17 year old child taking out a loan as big as house loan to pursue an education in _______ even though you really don't have a clue. Not that the government is forcing these loans, but they certainly aren't really advertising the overall financial burden associated with them. Not sure if that was Rabbits thought process, maybe just mine.

 

I'd like to see the education system tweaked to give more real life experience and critical thinking leading up to high school graduation rather than regurgitation of facts in an book.

[Soxbadger]

5 hours ago, raBBit said:

People who grow up in poverty have far more options that just taking on college debt. There are plenty of scholarships and financial aid available to good chunk of Americans if they have the right demographic profile.

I am not saying there shouldn't be loans for college. I am taking exception to government guaranteed loans. That's a huge distinction. With government guaranteed loans teenaged kids are able to sign themselves up for a mortgage in some bs major with no understanding of the risk they are taking on or the future earnings that major affords them (or doesn't). If the private loan market was more involved and the government wasn't making billions off of student loan interest than private institutions could offer debt in accordance to an individual's likelihood to get it back and in turn, there would be less students in debt for their whole life. The alternative is a skewed supply and demand market where academia can charge whatever the want for tuition because students can get loans as soon as they sign up their social security number with the government. That's how you get tuition increasing 6x faster than inflation. 

I don't know who you knew that went law school to party but that is not typical.  

Im not going to get into the "right demographic" comment, as my statements apply to everyone. Without govt backing, most HS school students wouldnt get a loan at all. At minimum they would need a parent to co-sign the loan. If it wasnt govt backed, most families wouldnt qualify for loans for multiple children. Its hard for people to qualify for a mortgage and the mortgage is backed by a security. The loan would have 0 backing. You also would need to keep the rule that makes it so student loans cant be bked. I guess the underlying difference is that I believe that everyone should have a chance to go to the college they desire and should have the chance to make a bad decision.

Perhaps we can agree that the govt should not be making money off of these loans and that we should be creating rules that limit the amount colleges (especially state schools) can increase their tuition per year. I have no problem with either of those ideas, but those seem to be ways to fix the current govt backed system. The reason why tuition is going up, is because supply and demand. The demand for college increases every year, the supply remains relatively consistent. 20 years ago Madison let in 5,850 Freshman. This year they let in 4.943. 20 years ago there were 40.196 total students  now there are 44,413. In 1998 the US population was 275mil. Today its 325 mil. So the college is taking about the same freshman and has 10% more students total. Meanwhile the US population has increased 20%. That doesnt even include the fact that more kids are trying to go to college now then ever before. Of course colleges are going to price gauge until the govt steps in. 

As for your last comment,  it applies to the people I know who went to law school who had parents who could afford to pay for it. Law School is a joke, you could pass the bar exam by taking Barbri for 3 weeks. 3 years is completely unnecessary is just a money sink/barrier of entry. 

[raBBit]

20 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

1.) Im not going to get into the "right demographic" comment, as my statements apply to everyone.

2.) Without govt backing, most HS school students wouldnt get a loan at all. At minimum they would need a parent to co-sign the loan. If it wasnt govt backed, most families wouldnt qualify for loans for multiple children. Its hard for people to qualify for a mortgage and the mortgage is backed by a security. The loan would have 0 backing. You also would need to keep the rule that makes it so student loans cant be bked. I guess the underlying difference is that I believe that everyone should have a chance to go to the college they desire and should have the chance to make a bad decision.

3.) Perhaps we can agree that the govt should not be making money off of these loans and that we should be creating rules that limit the amount colleges (especially state schools) can increase their tuition per year. I have no problem with either of those ideas, but those seem to be ways to fix the current govt backed system. The reason why tuition is going up, is because supply and demand. The demand for college increases every year, the supply remains relatively consistent. 20 years ago Madison let in 5,850 Freshman. This year they let in 4.943. 20 years ago there were 40.196 total students  now there are 44,413. In 1998 the US population was 275mil. Today its 325 mil. So the college is taking about the same freshman and has 10% more students total. Meanwhile the US population has increased 20%. That doesnt even include the fact that more kids are trying to go to college now then ever before. Of course colleges are going to price gauge until the govt steps in. 

As for your last comment,  it applies to the people I know who went to law school who had parents who could afford to pay for it. Law School is a joke, you could pass the bar exam by taking Barbri for 3 weeks. 3 years is completely unnecessary is just a money sink/barrier of entry. 

1.) Unfortunately financial aid and scholarships aren't meritocratic processes and different individuals have different or lesser options on account of their predispositions. That's a matter of fact. That's coming from someone who just went to college and just lived it. 

2.) Without government backing the prices of tuition would be lower as academia would have to charge the price the market determines as opposed to charging whatever they want because the government takes on their debt that cannot be discharged by government law. If that happened, less students would be in the market for loans. 

If the government implemented guaranteed car loans do you A.) think the car companies would be for it? and B.) think the average american's car purchase price would go up as a result?

3.) I agree the government shouldn't be making money off of the students.

Edited October 29, 2018 by raBBit

[Soxbadger]

Just now, raBBit said:

1.) Unfortunately financial aid and scholarships aren't a meritocratic process. That's coming from someone who just went to college and just lived. 

2.) Without government backing the prices of tuition would be lesser as academia would have to pay the price the market determines as opposed to charging whatever they want because the government takes on their debt that cannot be discharged by government law. If that happened, less students would be in the market for loans. 

3.) I agree the government shouldnt be making money off of the students.

1) I dont know. The only scholarships I got were entirely based on merit. I never applied for financial aid or a scholarship, but I was awarded partial scholarships for both undergraduate and law school. I never applied for them, I just was told that my grades/test scores qualified for money when they were trying to convince me to go to their school. I turned down more money from other schools, but who wanted to go to Iowa or Indiana? ( ) 

2) I think that for some of the lower level colleges this would be true. But for the top 50 schools, the prices arent going to drop. There are plenty of people would pay double what U of I charges instate to get their kid a guaranteed spot. To use Wisconsin, only 5k kids get in. In state tuition is $10k out of state is $30k. They only accepted approximately 50% of the kids who apply. If you made loans harder for people with less income, those spots are all going to get taken by kids from wealthier areas. They wont have to drop prices at all. But im talking about top end schools, if you start going down further there probably would be people who choose not to pay a lot of money for a tier 3 school. But 

[Jack Parkman]

6 hours ago, BrianAnderson said:

I get where both you and Rabbit are coming from. As always the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think the point that Rabbit is trying to get across is that we train/teach kids in high school very little for the real world. Meaning you take some real basic courses, but no real life courses or financial courses in high school. So unless you have parents that guide you through, a lot of times you're some 17 year old child taking out a loan as big as house loan to pursue an education in _______ even though you really don't have a clue. Not that the government is forcing these loans, but they certainly aren't really advertising the overall financial burden associated with them. Not sure if that was Rabbits thought process, maybe just mine.

 

I'd like to see the education system tweaked to give more real life experience and critical thinking leading up to high school graduation rather than regurgitation of facts in an book.

They need to do a better job of teaching college students real world skills too, as right now a BA or BS is nothing more than a tuition receipt. 

I never thought I'd be so unprepared with a college degree that I couldn't even get a decent job. You try to get a crappy job after that, and they won't hire you because you're overqualified. This is the problem that College grads are running into: They're underqualified for entry level jobs in their field with just a college degree, and overqualified for any other job. It is leaving a lot of people in no-man's land and having to lie on their apps to get the crappy jobs. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[he gone.]

15 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

They need to do a better job of teaching college students real world skills too, as right now a BA or BS is nothing more than a tuition receipt. 

I never thought I'd be so unprepared with a college degree that I couldn't even get a decent job. You try to get a crappy job after that, and they won't hire you because you're overqualified. This is the problem that College grads are running into: They're underqualified for entry level jobs in their field with just a college degree, and overqualified for any other job. It is leaving a lot of people in no-man's land and having to lie on their apps to get the crappy jobs. 

It also does not help that HR at most bigger companies is a joke. Everything is an algorithm and the application processes are choppy. It really just comes down to who do you know rather than are you qualified.

 

I never thought I'd be a hippy dippy who'd consider home schooling my kids or doing some kind of alternative learning (and probably still wont) but the system we're in just cares about teaching to the test. Your whole life your taught to just be obedient and regurgitate a scan-tron test. At the end of the day you have a bunch of kids who have just memorized material without really questioning why or learning financial and life skills to excel in life. We should really be teaching our kids more computer science, more basic financial skills, more cooking/health oriented classes, more wood shop/auto/trades type classes.

[ptatc]

On 10/26/2018 at 8:53 AM, BrianAnderson said:

I feel like my arguments were pretty focused on my disdain of the current system - not taking shots at people's intelligence.  That being said I will stand by my intelligence any day of the week.

I stand by my argument that you don't need to spend $50-75k over your first two years of college taking courses the university deems important. Colleges date back 100's of years when there was no internet, digital books, podcasts, etc. I don't have to sit through Biology 101 in college to learn Biology 101 any longer. Chances are if you are not interested in Biology 101 you're not going to put the effort in our retain the information you learned anyways, which goes back to my point to let the students choose how they want to earn their credits.

The general education courses you are required to take aren't what the university deemed you need to take. Its based on educational theories on expanding the mind to think in different ways to improve functional intelligence in a number of areas. Intelligence isn't knowledge and content. Its the process of thinking. This is why classes in math, science, history and other general education are required, to get the mind thinking differently.

If you only want to attain knowledge in a given area, you are missing the entire point of a college education. You are approaching it like specializing in sports, which just as bad of an idea for you physically and the mind being to specialized in education. We all have strengths and weakness in learning. It doesn't mean your mind isn't better off getting out of its comfort zone.

[raBBit]

1 hour ago, BrianAnderson said:

It also does not help that HR at most bigger companies is a joke. Everything is an algorithm and the application processes are choppy. It really just comes down to who do you know rather than are you qualified.

 

I never thought I'd be a hippy dippy who'd consider home schooling my kids or doing some kind of alternative learning (and probably still wont) but the system we're in just cares about teaching to the test. Your whole life your taught to just be obedient and regurgitate a scan-tron test. At the end of the day you have a bunch of kids who have just memorized material without really questioning why or learning financial and life skills to excel in life. We should really be teaching our kids more computer science, more basic financial skills, more cooking/health oriented classes, more wood shop/auto/trades type classes.

We think in step with the high school education and life skills stuff. Unfortunately, as to your homeschooling comment, high school is more of a social learning experience than anything else. At least I haven't found utility in my trigonometry, physics and Chicago history classes yet. And everyone my age is clueless as to how to pay their taxes, how debt works, soft skills, etc.

 

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, BrianAnderson said:

It also does not help that HR at most bigger companies is a joke. Everything is an algorithm and the application processes are choppy. It really just comes down to who do you know rather than are you qualified.

 

I never thought I'd be a hippy dippy who'd consider home schooling my kids or doing some kind of alternative learning (and probably still wont) but the system we're in just cares about teaching to the test. Your whole life your taught to just be obedient and regurgitate a scan-tron test. At the end of the day you have a bunch of kids who have just memorized material without really questioning why or learning financial and life skills to excel in life. We should really be teaching our kids more computer science, more basic financial skills, more cooking/health oriented classes, more wood shop/auto/trades type classes.

Stupid question...but do scantron tests still exist?  

[he gone.]

 Just look how the US rates in education in regards to other countries...

Just because something has been a certain way for a while doesn't make it the best way. By the time you get to college ... which is an elective of its own, you should be able to have more control over your academics and areas of interest. 

 We'll just agree to disagree -- because I am always going to be pretty anti-established practices of almost anything. Humans are all very different at our cores - how we learn, how we perceive ideas, etc. One kid may be a visual learner, another physical, verbal, etc. etc. I think it's foolish that we don't take advantage of that and think that every kid must take one science, one math, one English, one history course and THAT is what is determined to be a valued member of society because educational theories. I believe that there is A TON of room for improvement in our educational system and that it's actually really poorly run from top to bottom.

 

[StrangeSox]

1 hour ago, BrianAnderson said:

 Just look how the US rates in education in regards to other countries...

Just because something has been a certain way for a while doesn't make it the best way. By the time you get to college ... which is an elective of its own, you should be able to have more control over your academics and areas of interest. 

 We'll just agree to disagree -- because I am always going to be pretty anti-established practices of almost anything. Humans are all very different at our cores - how we learn, how we perceive ideas, etc. One kid may be a visual learner, another physical, verbal, etc. etc. I think it's foolish that we don't take advantage of that and think that every kid must take one science, one math, one English, one history course and THAT is what is determined to be a valued member of society because educational theories. I believe that there is A TON of room for improvement in our educational system and that it's actually really poorly run from top to bottom.

 

fwiw this concept has been debunked

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687/

US education at the collegiate level ranks at the top of the world.

[StrangeSox]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

Stupid question...but do scantron tests still exist?  

Oh absolutely. Some tests are moving more to computer-based these days, but if you have 1000 students that all need to take a state test in a given week, lol.

[southsider2k5]

3 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

Stupid question...but do scantron tests still exist?  

Yes, especially for standardized testing.

[Eminor3rd]

I think if you wake up and realize you hate your job but are too far down  the road to realistically change it, this sounds like a better alternative to perpetual misery and/or suicide. 

However, I think in the vast majority of situations, you also have the option of changing your career, even though it doesn’t SEEM like it. Try this, though: list all the reasons you “can’t afford” to make a radical career change, then look at that list and honestly count how many of those reasons are actually achievable through sacrifices (not unlike the FIRE methods in the article). Most likely, the option is open to you if you’re simply willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Which, you may not be willing to make. But it’s an option. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Jack Parkman]

11 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

I think if you wake up and realize you hate your job but are too far down  the road to realistically change it, this sounds like a better alternative to perpetual misery and/or suicide. 

However, I think in the vast majority of situations, you also have the option of changing your career, even though it doesn’t SEEM like it. Try this, though: list all the reasons you “can’t afford” to make a radical career change, then look at that list and honestly count how many of those reasons are actually achievable through sacrifices (not unlike the FIRE methods in the article). Most likely, the option is open to you if you’re simply willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Which, you may not be willing to make. But it’s an option. 

It's tough to make a career change when your original one never got started. I know that I'd probably be fine if I went back to school for software engineering, but taking on the debt scares the ever loving crap out of me. Especially when I still owe 20K on my chemical engineering degree. 

[Eminor3rd]

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's tough to make a career change when your original one never got started. I know that I'd probably be fine if I went back to school for software engineering, but taking on the debt scares the ever loving crap out of me. Especially when I still owe 20K on my chemical engineering degree. 

PM'd

Edited November 1, 2018 by Eminor3rd
ehhh PM

[Jack Parkman]

31 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

"Scares." That's the thing. It's not impossible, just scary. You may not ultimately think it's worth it, but it's always possible.

Most likely, there's a middle road that'll take longer and feel worse but be more realistic. Code Academy? How much do you need to learn to be an intern? Could you get that in a year? Online courses? Small companies need help if you're willing to work for cheap to get experience, which then becomes more valuable than an expensive education. I don't know exactly, but that's the problem that needs to be solved. You know what the goal is, you have to work backwards to figure out how to get there. And maybe you only get 85% there, but it sounds better than 0%.

I went to school to be a marketing guy. Wanted to work in an agency. Took me about five years, but I went from intern in a small company to the director level and top billable resource of the same company. Made decent money. Hated every moment of it. Felt like a fraud. Half my clients were helpless and I was wasting their money. Could not believe my whole life was going to be coming up with bullshit ways to sell bullshit products. Couldn't believe how wrong I was. Didn't care about the money -- wanted to work in baseball. Should have done that. Didn't seem realistic at the time, but what about then? In my late 20's with a ton of debt. How could I go back then?

Finally hit rock bottom and decided I'd sacrifice everything. Networked like crazy, started going to winter meetings. Finally found someone to give me a shot as a Marketing guy for a Short Season team. Massive pay cut, massive risk. Moving across the country, blowing my savings. Five more years and three teams later, I'm working for an MLB team. Now, I'm in corporate sponsorship activation, not baseball ops like I wanted, because with my background, that was the way in -- but I got 85% there and it's so much better than 0%. I'm proud of what I do because I'm making the business of baseball work, and I believe in that product.

If you're miserable, the worst thing that can happen to you is you fail and stay miserable. But you have to change SOMETHING, because wasting your life is the alternative. I'm not saying don't be smart about it, but it's worth working on.

I understand that is how it works for Neurotypicals(non-autistic) people but I am absolutely petrified of ending up in the same spot with 2 BS degrees, 60K in debt and still working part time in software QA. Getting the degree opens up options for me in specialized programs like those with Microsoft and SAP, but outside of those the market for autistics is beyond awful. The overwhelming majority of us who don't have degrees in computer science or software engineering are kind of screwed. We don't have the soft skills that most companies are looking for, and we probably will never have them. If everyone who likes math and science, and was gifted/ on the spectrum started to go solely into CS/SE then it would flood the market, and those jobs would be even harder to come by. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Eminor3rd]

9 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I understand that is how it works for Neurotypicals(non-autistic) people but I am absolutely petrified of ending up in the same spot with 2 BS degrees, 60K in debt and still working part time in software QA. Getting the degree opens up options for me in specialized programs like those with Microsoft and SAP, but outside of those the market for autistics is beyond awful. The overwhelming majority of us who don't have degrees in computer science or software engineering are kind of screwed. We don't have the soft skills that most companies are looking for, and we probably will never have them. If everyone who likes math and science, and was gifted/ on the spectrum started to go solely into CS/SE then it would flood the market, and those jobs would be even harder to come by. 

My point wasn’t that there’s is a specific path to follow, my point is that there’s a difference between being stuck and simply not being willing to take the risk to make a change.

Everyone’s circumstances are unique. I read the article you sent. I respect the challenges you face. There IS a path for you to take (you described it) should you choose to take it. I’m not saying you should, I’m just making a distinction that most people don’t think to make. Which is what feels like CAN’T is often actually WON’T, and there are probably good reasons for the WON’T, but you can choose to disregard them if you want. 

I’ll never forget a moment I had with my piano professor in college. I hadn’t declared a major yet and was stressed about it, but was doing a music minor. I asked him, essentially, how he decided to go for music full time, given how hard it is to make a reasonable living with that degree. He laughed and said something like, “it was never a choice. I’m a piano player and I’ve just been figuring out how to make it in the world.” That was the day I knew I wasn’t gonna be a music major, because I was asking the wrong questions.

If you want to be a software developer, you can BE a software developer. How you’ll make a living as a software developer is a related but different challenge you’ll have to deal with. If you’re just concerned about making a comfortable living though, then accept that as a higher priority and be comfortable and confident in your decision to do something else. 

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

My point wasn’t that there’s is a specific path to follow, my point is that there’s a difference between being stuck and simply not being willing to take the risk to make a change.

Everyone’s circumstances are unique. I read the article you sent. I respect the challenges you face. There IS a path for you to take (you described it) should you choose to take it. I’m not saying you should, I’m just making a distinction that most people don’t think to make. Which is what feels like CAN’T is often actually WON’T, and there are probably good reasons for the WON’T, but you can choose to disregard them if you want. 

I’ll never forget a moment I had with my piano professor in college. I hadn’t declared a major yet and was stressed about it, but was doing a music minor. I asked him, essentially, how he decided to go for music full time, given how hard it is to make a reasonable living with that degree. He laughed and said something like, “it was never a choice. I’m a piano player and I’ve just been figuring out how to make it in the world.” That was the day I knew I wasn’t gonna be a music major, because I was asking the wrong questions.

If you want to be a software developer, you can BE a software developer. How you’ll make a living as a software developer is a related but different challenge you’ll have to deal with. If you’re just concerned about making a comfortable living though, then accept that as a higher priority and be comfortable and confident in your decision to do something else. 

The other thing is that I don't necessarily like software development, I'd much rather do something else. I don't hate it either, I find it "meh" . The issue is I don't have the soft skills to do anything else, lol. Pigeonholed, I am. Hmmm Yes. /yoda. I'd only do it because it pays the bills and nothing more, and personal and financial independence is a huge goal of mine. It is a huge catch 22. 

[Eminor3rd]

57 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The other thing is that I don't necessarily like software development, I'd much rather do something else. I don't hate it either, I find it "meh" . The issue is I don't have the soft skills to do anything else, lol. Pigeonholed, I am. Hmmm Yes. /yoda. I'd only do it because it pays the bills and nothing more, and personal and financial independence is a huge goal of mine. It is a huge catch 22. 

This FIRE stuff probably makes a ton of sense for you, then. It’s like the meta game of work. Minimize time, maximize output. 

Youll figure it out man. You’re obviously smart. Stay determined. And be proud of what you accomplish in light of your extra challenges. They aren’t fair, but you’re doing it and that’s awesome. 

[caulfield12]

https://eand.co/does-america-have-a-future-da09ba31d050

Jack might be the only one with the patience to read this...but it's a compelling argument that the Millennials are the only group who can "save" America at this point, and the rationale makes a lot of sense, certainly when you think of it in terms of what's currently going on politically with the politics of division/identity dominating over policy ideas for improving the country.

It's all about protecting the old guard vs. what's next?  Of course, the Dems haven't done a great job articulating what they want to do exactly that will really make a significant impact, partly due to the fact that "big projects" don't seem to fit with a $21.5 trillion debt (and growing).

 

https://medium.com/s/free-money

8 arguments (for and against) establishing Universal Basic Income in the future as AI/machine learning/robotics replaces more and more "human" occupations.

Edited November 2, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Suze Orman broke the internet earlier this month when she told the “Afford Anything” podcast that those buying into the FIRE movement (financial independence, retire early) better save at least $5 million to achieve that goal. 

The overwhelming response: Are you nuts, rich lady?

Emails poured in, tweetstorms raged, Reddit’s FIRE board lit up and bloggers everywhere, including Mr. Money Moustache, laid out perfectly sound reasons why Orman’s out of touch with millennials and the needs of the common man. 

But one popular personal finance blogger swam upstream right next to Orman, and he used his own experience to back his point. 

“Her views ruffled a lot of feathers, but after crunching the numbers, I have to agree — $5 million sounds about right if you want to retire before the age of 60,” the Financial Samurai blog’s Sam Dogen said. “Bad things happen in life all the time that costs money!”

He pointed out that only 18% of Americans actually retire before the age of 61, so it makes sense that the masses took issue with Orman’s scenario — $5 million to $10 million isn’t an option for most.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-numbers-show-suze-orman-is-right-about-needing-5-million-to-retire-2018-10-15?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

[caulfield12]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-does-the-early-retirement-movement-have-so-many-haters-2018-11-12?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

Opinion: These are the bad things about early retirement that no one talks about

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-bad-things-about-early-retirement-that-no-one-talks-about-2018-09-26?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

[Panerista]

I just feel like humans are meant to work.  

FIRE just seems like a thing people can brag about like cord cutting.  Good for you, I'm going to go have a cool experience at a nice restaurant because I can live my life and have a job.

[Dominikk85]

The idea is nice but most of those people were probably privileged people who had their parents pay for college and of course they were very successful making 150+ k per year.

For a normal person making 50-70 k a year, having student debt and having kids this will be almost impossible to do.

This is really a thing for a very small, mostly white elite and not something the average person will do. Definitely interesting but more of a curiosity rather than a life model for the future. Also even for those elite guys it could crash if economy is cooling off.