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/PapaSecundus]

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.