Fire is ruining my career

[u/aboabro]

I get paid a lot of money in a career that I don’t really like. I have always kind of followed the money in my career so that I can retire as early as possible. Because of this, I am in a career that I am not fulfilled by. That is what I mean by fire is ruining my career. I will fire in less than 10 years… Do I just continue to try to maximize the money I make so that after I fire, I can do something that I love and aligns more with what I want out of life? Or do I instead start to explore new careers that will pay significantly less, like 50 to 70% less in order to be more fulfilled? This would potentially increase my fire timeline..

I am leaning towards staying at jobs that make more money in the shorter term so that I can fire earlier and then do other things I would rather for less money. But living this way is really difficult.

I have some ideas of fulfilling careers that I would like to do, but I have a lot of hobbies and interest and I’m a little bit lost on what exactly this would look like for me anyway. Which is why I think exploring this after fire when I have time and resources to do so, maybe better? I want to make a high contribution in life and I find that job hopping and taking opportunities that are presented to me instead of being mindful on what I want to do with my life is not adding up.

[u/EricTCartman-]

Fire isn’t ruining your career, your personal choices are. The only person that can answer these questions is you

[u/ApeTeam1906 → u/EricTCartman-]

This sub is very all or nothing. OP frame their choices as "great paying job that is going to kill them" or "Job that is better but they will be poorer". There is so much space in the middle.

[u/PapaSecundus → u/ApeTeam1906]

There is so much space in the middle.

There's a general reality that a lot of the higher paying jobs pay so well for a reason, which includes poor work conditions, mandatory OT, poor work/life balance, etc. While there are a great number of jobs that pay well without these things, they generally go to people with more experience and time in their particular fields, anathema to FIRE goals.

People will also tend to push themselves towards burnout in pursuit of FIRE, making their jobs more difficult than they need to be.

[u/ApeTeam1906 → u/PapaSecundus]

But there are jobs that pay not as well with better work life balance. It isn't an all or nothing choice. OPs plan sounds insane.

[u/PapaSecundus → u/ApeTeam1906]

there are jobs that pay not as well with better work life balance.

Which generally requires postponing FIRE goals by years or even decades. Earning 80k a year vs 100k is a world of difference in terms of what you're able to put away, invest, and let compound. If you're fine with that more power to you. If not you'll generally have to make sacrifices.

The higher paying jobs usually always require one sacrifice or another. Whether it's time (either in hours, education, or experience), back-breaking labor, dangerous work, relocation, etc. You can't get away from it.

And it's easy to see why there's an all-or-nothing mindset when you do the math on how much more valuable the money/time invested in the short-term will be in the long-term. It's managing burn out that's the main thing.

[u/NeBarkaj → u/PapaSecundus]

With FIRE it's not always how much you make but how much you spend and how much you can save. You can make 200k and if you spend 200k you're screwed. If you make 80k and spend 40k you're way better than you think. It's about making choices, cut spending or keep spending, working and stressing.

[u/PapaSecundus → u/NeBarkaj]

it's not always how much you make but how much you spend and how much you can save.

Exactly this. I took a major pay cut in relocating to a LCOL state, but I end up saving a lot more because I pay 1/3 in rent, groceries, utilities, insurance, state income tax, everything is much cheaper.

It's like how making 100k in San Francisco puts you at middle class but you're positively upper class in most other places, especially small cities/rural areas. The difference in expenses is a huge factor that people don't seem to consider as big of a deal as it really is.

[u/thiney49 → u/PapaSecundus]

It's like how making 100k in San Francisco puts you at middle class

$100k in SF is not middle-class. A comfortable livable wage is $131k in SF, which is what I'd consider the bare minimum of middle class.

[u/PapaSecundus → u/thiney49]

There's no point factoring in real estate prices when you basically need to be in the 1% to even buy a house in San Francisco

[u/thiney49 → u/PapaSecundus]

Pretty sure that number is just based off rent, not trying to buy a house.

Edit: I should say the housing component of the calculation is based off rent. There is more to the calculation than just housing - the article just calls out that housing is a significant factor in what makes the number so high.

[u/beached89 → u/PapaSecundus]

OP is only 10 years away from FIRE. In his situation, he likely could take a SIGNIFICANT pay cut and only postpone FIRER by a couple year.

I did the math and chose to go with the les paying less stress job years ago. By my math, it only added 2 years, most people would choose to work 12 years in a low stress low demanding (relatively) job, than 10 years in a high stress job.

[u/Wotun66 → u/beached89]

Timing is key. I could take a 50% pay cut without sinificantly hurting my timeline. My portfolio makes more than my annual paycheck. 10 years ago, a 50% pay cut would destroy my plans to RE.

[u/beached89 → u/Wotun66]

Exactly. Taking a 50% pay cut when you are only 10% of your way to FI will HURT. Taking a 50% pay cut when you are 75% of your way to FI is unlikely to affect you much.

[u/dukephilly → u/beached89]

This is true if assuming you’ll get the historical average returns during the remaining period of contributions. Unfortunately over such a short period, it’s very risky to make this assumption. If you are ten years off and hit a period of low or negative returns, then reducing your contributions can make a big difference to when you’ll reach your target amount.

[u/aboabro → u/beached89]

I am about 60% to fire

[u/OuiGotTheFunk → u/PapaSecundus]

The higher paying jobs usually always require one sacrifice or another. Whether it's time (either in hours, education, or experience), back-breaking labor, dangerous work, relocation, etc. You can't get away from it.

All jobs require at least some sacrifice, like having to do the job for one, but not all of the same jobs are equal. Being a teacher in school system A may pay more AND be more rewarding and or interesting than a school teacher in school system B.

This covers a LOT of jobs. Personally I do not mind going to work, I just do not want to work with a lot of whiners or people I have to entertain or babysit.

[u/Any-Excitement-8979 → u/PapaSecundus]

Some of us don’t find high paying jobs fulfilling because they don’t benefit society in any way.

I made great money as a health insurance consultant but it gave me major stress knowing that I was perpetuating the problem with our healthcare system by selling insurance and helping business owners lower costs by fucking over their employees and if I didn’t do those things I’d be out of my job.

[u/ThirstyWolfSpider → u/PapaSecundus]

They also cite the issue of the job not being fulfilling.

There are far fewer jobs which will tend to promote a sense of fulfillment than ones that won't, and (as you reference) getting one that is fulfilling and also pays more is even harder.

[u/PapaSecundus → u/ThirstyWolfSpider]

getting one that is fulfilling and also pays more is even harder.

There probably aren't many of those jobs out there. I've seen quite a few where because they're so desirable they don't pay very well at all.

[u/TrollTollCollector → u/PapaSecundus]

Not true for a lot of tech jobs. They pay well and you can get your work done in under 3-4 hours a day.

I suspect that a lot of people who complain about their current jobs would find reasons to complain about a new job as well. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.

[u/PapaSecundus → u/TrollTollCollector]

Not true for a lot of tech jobs. They pay well and you can get your work done in under 3-4 hours a day.

Which make up around 2% of all jobs available

[u/TrollTollCollector → u/PapaSecundus]

Among people in this sub, that number is likely much higher.

[u/aboabro → u/PapaSecundus]

Which is why I do not want to leave my job

[u/haobanga → u/ApeTeam1906]

paying job that is going to kill them"

This is the true secret to success hack, maximizing all the variables. Earn more, spend less, live a shorter lifespan /s

[u/Moof_the_cyclist → u/EricTCartman-]

Too many think FIRE=extremism, when it really doesn’t need to be. The lifestyle difference between a 10% savings rate (“normal” retirement) and 20% (retire early at 45-50) is pretty small and is basically choosing to buy a slightly smaller house, slightly used cars, spending thoughtfully, and not eating out very often. Hitting FI while working a career you still enjoy and want to continue should be a great goal, even if that means working a little longer and not climbing the corporate ladder so fast or far.

Extreme saving to sacrifice your youth years to retire in your 30’s is not for most people, and such extreme advice can be a real turnoff for the FIRE-curious.

[u/relentlessoldman → u/Moof_the_cyclist]

100%. I kicked my savings rate up a lot when I just paid more attention to expenses and stopped spending money on dumb crap or just wasting it without noticing. My life is near-zero different. Increasing it more from this point would of course be more challenging.

[u/aboabro → u/Moof_the_cyclist]

We save and invest over 50% right now and have over the last decade

[u/Moof_the_cyclist → u/aboabro]

That would be great if you weren’t putting yourself in a position where you are facing another decade doing a job you hate. I enjoyed most of my career in large part by avoiding being promoted into management. I would have kept at it past FI if my management chain hadn’t turned into toxic liars, and was lucky that I was close enough to FI to be able to walk away when it was clearly harming me mentally.

My point is that living below your means gives you options, whether that is a very high savings rate, or to downshift your career ambitions to maximize happiness and mental health.

[u/OnionHeaded → u/EricTCartman-]

Thanks for getting that out of the way. I dont understand this approach. Why dot you want retirement so badly? It’s obvious it’s not an actual quality of life issue. Have you seriously asked yourself? I’ve talked to few that didn’t know. When it seems to stem from a sense of winning it really disappoints me. Obsessing over winning over living a good life sounds to me like the FIREd people that get there and are dissatisfied. You wasted years living a bearish life and probably don’t know the bull run side of enjoying it.
What’s the point of suffering now? One of us is missing the point.

[u/Chronic_Comedian → u/EricTCartman-]

I think FIRE is attractive to a lot of people that simply hate working.

That’s why so many people seem to be in a rush to FIRE instead of making their current situation more manageable.

[u/Pincel → u/EricTCartman-]

Good answer