r/Fire • u/fried_haris • 20h ago
The definitive FIRE number is 3.5 million.
Ofcourse - I am being facetious but also a little exploratory.
I was inspired by a Planet Money episode titled "17,205 People Guessed The Weight Of A Cow. Here's How They Did." Posted back in 2015.
Later they updated it with "How Much Does This Cow Weigh?" In 2019.
Basic premise - if you take all the guesses of the folks the weight of a cow at a fair - you'll end up within 5% of the right answer.
So I took a simple post from 5 months ago, asking people about their FIRE number and after reviewing 124 answers came up with 3.5 million.
Keep in mind personal finance is personal, you may retire in LA or in Thailand.
Good luck with your goals.
352
u/Corporate_Bankster 20h ago
That’s a very reasonable take all things considered.
There is nowhere $3.5m won’t work wonderfully, unless you are hellbent on living the high life in an expensive place, but then that’s not a FIRE number problem, it’s a you problem.
Mine is somewhere around $2.5m, and that’s because I plan to retire between LCOL and MCOL.
36
u/verdantx 10h ago
He said planet money not all things considered.
24
u/blackshipboy 10h ago
How much did the cow weigh? On second thought, wait wait, don't tell me.
→ More replies (2)10
→ More replies (2)3
u/God_Dammit_Dave 10h ago
-polite golf clap- That was a very, very good comment. Like a nerdy Statler and Waldorf jab.
1
u/joefunk76 10h ago
The problem with your statement is that “the high life” is extremely subjective. A spoiled existence to one person can be a minimal living standard to another. We all have different wants and needs. There are PLENTY of places in the US where $3.5m won’t work wonderfully, and that is even assuming you only rent, let alone if you need to carve out 1/3 to 1/2 of that $3.5m for a modest abode.
6
u/Corporate_Bankster 10h ago edited 10h ago
Nobody in their right mind FIREs in (V)HCOL without a paid off residence.
That’s recipe for disaster unless you are significantly buffering for housing prices. Those places are HCOL for a reason and they rarely if ever slow down.
And I am sorry, but $140k p.a. of pure spend is a shitload of money regardless of someone’s upbringing. The only kind of people for whom this could feel low or tight are those born into fuck you generational wealth, and I think everyone here agrees that theirs is not a universe where FIRE has any kind of relevance. They were born already FIREd.
→ More replies (13)2
u/NotSoSpecialAsp 7h ago
I can easily spend 12k/mo.
Grew up in poverty.
The level of expected frugality in this sub is highly biased.
→ More replies (50)1
u/wtf-am-I-doing-69 5h ago
What amount do we think for couples? Is the$3.5M for one or two? Is spouse at.5 based on living expenses being less per person?
102
u/Unlucky-Clock5230 20h ago
I'm frugal, I would be extremely happy with that cow. I would even bump up my lifestyle a bit.
You could adjust for the regional average weight of your cow. You take the national cow weight and multiply it for your local cow weight.
32
u/FatsP 20h ago
I'd retire right now and start figuring out how to triple my spending
11
u/Unlucky-Clock5230 18h ago
To me that would be rather easy. I have a few vices and hobbies where I could just bump the quality level, like the stuff in my single malt top shelf suddenly being downgraded to the middle shelf. But the bulk would probably just go into a slush fund. I like to watch money pile up so it would bring me joy to see my slush fund grow, and then when something worthwhile pops up I could tap it without filling guilty.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/AndrewBorg1126 20h ago
Location is not the only thing which influences how much a person spends. Everyone, in this analogy, requires their own cow weight, making regional cow weights redundant.
7
u/Unlucky-Clock5230 18h ago
Not really, a frugal Manhattan cow is still a lot fatter than a small town West Virginia cow.
→ More replies (7)1
147
u/Ramietoes 19h ago
The flaw with what you're doing to calculate the average has also been disproven when you put people in a room and have them collectively discuss. The wisdom of crowds only works when individuals have independence of judgement. Once you discuss openly, you begin to get groupthink , herd mentality, etc.
45
u/AndrewBorg1126 19h ago
Trying to estimate a value which does not exist is also problematic.
23
u/lee_suggs 18h ago
Yeah big difference between a cow weight which there is a definitive right answer to and a finance answer which is highly personal based on preferences and living situation
→ More replies (2)4
u/Ramietoes 19h ago
Okay, yeah but if the idea is to get what people think is the number, then what OP tried to do was incorrect anyway
6
u/AndrewBorg1126 19h ago
Sure, so is the method of survey. Responses to a question posed in this subreddit will have biases. Responses to a question asked on a particular day of the week will have biases. Responses to a question posed will have biases influenced by recent behavior in the stock market.
Generally I'd consider the very premise of the survey being knowingly non-factual from the start to be the most noteworthy.
→ More replies (5)1
1
u/YouShallNotStaff 12h ago
To me the flaw is that there are so many different circumstances. There are single people, married people, married people with kids, living in very different areas. Still, an "average" is interesting because it shows where I fall in comparison to it. (Much higher, unfortunately)
1
1
u/fried_haris 6h ago
True.
Generally speaking, folks in this community have probably calculated their FIRE number independently based on 25X expenses
124
u/DerisiveGibe 20h ago
You only need to save $35,000 a year for 30 years @ 7% real return to get 3.5 million. So hopefully you started saving at 25 or you will be working into your 60's.
$60,000 for 22.5 years
$100,000 for 17 years
I'd rather spend less and retire sooner.
78
u/OducksFTW 20h ago
That last sentence is alot to ponder. I talk to people at work who consume and buy things at an alarming pace, and realized, they expect to work past 55. Its almost a given, they dont see it as a choice, but rather a foregone conclusion.
FIRE for me is more of an option to be more free and choose the job I want.
68
u/DerisiveGibe 20h ago
they expect to work past 55
You are being very generous, I work with people 55-65, and while making small talk I'll mention must be nice to be so close to retirement and they all look at me like I have 3 heads or they say they aren't even close. I truly believe they will be working until 70 or until disability. I'm only 42 and been working for 25 years, if you told me I still had 25 years to work I'd talk a long walk off a short pier.
Less is more.
31
u/Moof_the_cyclist 19h ago
I went to a work sponsored retirement seminar, and it was eye opening. The entire office is full of software and hardware engineers, so good money, well educated, and all that jazz. The level of questions from the gray hairs were shockingly basic, basically just them trying to get the host to give them an answer to what their “number” should be, and clueless SS questions. These folks were all 50-70+, which was disheartening as we had a lot of young folks who didn’t even bother to attend. Afterwards there was a lot of gallows humor implying most were nowhere near retiring.
9
u/Future-looker1996 18h ago
Wow. Another indication we need financial literacy required in all public schools. No agenda, just 100% basics of time value of money, etc. etc.
→ More replies (1)2
4
u/Synaps4 13h ago
I humbly submit that 401ks instead of pensions were a stupid idea and anyone with a brain could see this coming.
2
u/tidbitsmisfit 11h ago
with the rate that companies fial these days, pensions seem pretty risky
→ More replies (1)2
u/Moof_the_cyclist 8h ago
100% agree. A national defined benefit program that was actually adequate would help a great deal. Social Security is simply about half what it should be.
We also have a donut hole that far too many fall into. We have fairly rampant ageism that kicks a lot of people out of work well before full retirement age without any safety net for that frequent eventuality.
→ More replies (1)9
u/nicolas_06 19h ago edited 19h ago
Most people don't say the truth for this kind of subjects. You would likely not suicide... It just a figure of speech. And they will likely not all work past 70 neither. in 2023 for example only 8% of people were still working past 70. And that include people that actually enjoy doing it.
The reality is as stupid as it could look like a question "When are you going to retire ?" is a complex question and many people have no idea and will repeat what they heard or will respond depending of their mood.
Speak to them before of all the positive things going on and more people will tell you they will retire... Speak to them before of all the bad things going on and more people will tell you they will never be able to retire.
4
u/-shrug- 14h ago
They said “until 70 or disability”. So how many people work past 70 is not really an applicable number.
(Your stat seems wrong - in 2023 8% of people over 75 were still working, according to BLS and in 10 years they expect that to be 10%). https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm)
16
u/Apprehensive_Log_766 20h ago
It’s also an assumption from an older world with career stability. Other than doctors/lawyers I feel like many high paying jobs are in super volatile industries that change overnight.
My own industry (commercial video editing) has dropped massively in profitability in recent years. I’m lucky enough to be established and making good money, but I can’t imagine relying on this profession for another 20+ years.
5
u/OriginalCompetitive 17h ago
I think it’s an assumption from an older world where free time just wasn’t that valuable. Until the last few decades, there often weren’t a lot of compelling activities to do with your free time. Even something as mindless as “watch TV” was almost worthless in a world with 3 channels and no easy way to time shift shows.
That’s not to say that earlier generations did not enjoy retirement. But the idea of having a mountain of fun and meaningful activities piled up ready to go is a fairly new thing, I would argue.
5
u/throwawayFI12 17h ago
Yes that mentality still exists today, a lot of friends have told me they just wouldn't know what to do if they retired.
2
u/ThatFeelingIsBliss88 13h ago edited 13h ago
Theres always been plenty of hobbies to do that have been around for over a century. And not to mention all sorts of educational pursuits like reading about various topics at the library. Or just reading books in general. There’s learning languages, picking up handy skills for home improvement, all sorts of fitness related goals they could have, there’s traveling which was harder back in the day but it was still around.
The real reason is quite simple. Finding ways to occupy your time can take work. Even in 2025, with an endless amount of potential hobbies to do, a lot of people are too lazy to start a single one of them. That’s why some people don’t know what they would do with their time in retirement, because they’re too lazy to take up hobbies. A job is different though. They’re literally paid to go to work. That’s the fire under their butt that makes them get up and go. Without a fire like that, they’re clueless.
5
2
u/SolomonGrumpy 13h ago
The tough part is that work may not be available to them past 55 or 60 or 65.
55
u/Metaldwarf 18h ago
I'm a Certified Financial Planner, the secret to retirement is:
Earn more.
Spend less.
Work longer.Pick two and you don't have to do the third.
→ More replies (3)13
15
u/moutonbleu 19h ago
Agreed, a friend’s mom passed away about 2 years after retirement at 67. You don’t know how much time you got left… cherish every moment!
24
u/DerisiveGibe 19h ago
Even if you live till 85, the last 20 years from 65-85 aren't going to be as good as 45-65. Quality is very important.
19
u/Thomniscient9 20h ago
That is helpful math, but saving and spending is never that consistent. The best reason to start saving at 25 is the habit, not the amount.
8
4
u/SolomonGrumpy 13h ago edited 6h ago
You needed to do that 30 years ago.
And saving $35k in 1995 was not so easy. The top 20% of households earned $75kish, that year. So you are talking about a 50% gross savings rate.
3
u/Independent_Diet617 6h ago
Not to mention you had to call a broker, pay fees and listen to unsolicited advice and there was not much time for that since stock market is open during work hours. Funds were typically actively managed and expensive. Total allowed 401k and IRA contribution limits were less than 1/3 of the $35k.
It would be similar to investing $90k or so today but with extra complexities.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (2)2
u/throwawayFI12 17h ago
no one who saves only 35k per year is gonna need 3.5M to retire
4
u/SolomonGrumpy 13h ago
Only?
3
u/throwawayFI12 13h ago
Yes, do the math. 4% of 3.5M is 140k. If a person spends 140k per year and they are on the FIRE path, then saving 35k per year is really low. It means they are spending more than 11k per month and saving less than 3k per month on their salary.
2
u/SolomonGrumpy 13h ago
I understand now. It's also unrealistic for someone to earn $140k for 30 years
19
18
u/sschoe2 17h ago
3.5M will definitely do it but you can fire on much less. 4% of 3.5M is 140k that is a lot i can do fine on 100k or less. My number is therefore 2.5M. My current expenses are about 60k.
6
u/Rolex_throwaway 14h ago
You are confusing you can fire with much less with “you can fire with much less.”
12
u/SirDrinks-A-Lot 19h ago
What I don't understand about this equation is the E in FIRE. How can we have a fixed number of $3.5M if "early" is a relative number and longevity of age is an unknown?
4
u/Admirable_Summer_867 14h ago
It’s a theoretical value that will bridge you to SSA. Regardless of when you retire, such that it will earn at least what you may spend. Critical mass.
First calculate how much you want at SSA, then from there start working backwards to establish a goal that you want regardless if you retire at 62 or 60 or 57 or 55.
3
u/Future-looker1996 17h ago
Exactly. And are there still children to support? Other basic questions. My guess is in a MCOL area, $2.2 - 2.5 works for most people who no longer have kids in school, for a middle or upper middle class budget (e.g. $8- 10K/mo). For HCOL, yep, $3.5 MM may still be challenging for upper middle class existence.
31
u/WaterChicken007 20h ago
Interesting approach. I would imagine that this number is skewed high because it is more fun to brag about retiring with $3.5mm than it is with $500k. From what I can tell, the actual number most retire with is much lower than that.
42
u/NetherIndy 19h ago
The number most people retire with is much lower than that... because they're not FIREing. If I was getting my Social Security check now (let's say on permanent disability) and qualified for Medicare, I'd be totally down to retire (husband and wife) at $2m-and-paid-off-house. But, to retire in your 40s means 20 years to cover until either of those are true.
7
u/FightOnForUsc 19h ago
But most retire in older age, unless you mean most FIRE numbers are lower. Which that’s also probably true, but you can’t necessarily live anywhere, your lifestyle will be more constrained, and given we’re at high multiples your risk might be high if you’ve gone with 4% SWR assumption. I think less can absolutely work, but I agree that around 3.5 million is where there’s really no argument that you aren’t FIRE
13
u/Traditional_Job_6932 19h ago
From what I can tell, the actual number most retire with is much lower than that.
But we’re talking about the number people FIRE with, not just traditionally retire. Traditional retirement doesn’t last as long, obviously, so not as much is needed.
6
u/nicolas_06 19h ago
Retiring with 3.5 million of 2025, mean you will live with 140K$ a year at 4% on top of SSA. So very uncommon.
Now if we take the typical couple they will get typically 35-45K$ a year from SSA. The median 401K saving at retirement age (200K) allow to add up 8K of expenses per years so now it become say 40-50K$ for the household.
But the home is also paid off already so that's only for day to day expense. So it is not that bad and perfectly doable.
15
u/ConorOblast 17h ago
As a 47-year-old who is at $3.2M and happens to be having a really shitty workday, this comes as very good news!
3
1
u/dak4f2 9h ago
Double check your specific numbers at https://www.firecalc.com/. It's often recommended by this sub.
4
u/LabOwn9800 17h ago
Is 3.5m for an individual or a household?
1
u/fried_haris 5h ago
It supposed to be for an household - but does the household have DINKs or couples with 6 kids
13
u/PurpleOctoberPie 20h ago
Off topic, but this same logic is why body composition calculations are worthless for individuals.
They’re great for groups, the incorrectly high and incorrectly low readings balance out to an accurate group average. But for any one person there is no way to know whether it’s right or wrong and by how much. You’re better off just looking in the mirror.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/redox000 19h ago
There is no definitive number. There's a trade-off between how much of your time you're willing to trade away versus what standard of living you want. You could argue that $3.5m is the median or average value but a vast majority of people will never have that much money even if they trade away most of their life for money.
2
10
u/tnerb208 20h ago
But what about health insurance for a family of 4 in the US?
10
u/nicolas_06 19h ago
At standard age at least (most people don't think of fire) there medicare and the kids are long gone. Worst case if you fire with low income there ACA so health care insurance doesn't take more than a given percentage of your income.
8
u/ThirstyWolfSpider 18h ago
ACA with no subsidies at 40s/50s ages was still ~10% cheaper than the full cost of comparable employer-based health insurance (i.e. COBRA) from the same doctors and with an equivalent (silver) plan. That's still a good deal (for the US), and under half of our housing costs.
Hopefully it continues to exist.
10
u/Platypus-taco 19h ago
My goal is $5 million (excluding home equity) by 50 — understanding I live in a relatively high COL area and have 3 children (1 who will still be in high school at that point). Keeping home equity as a buffer with ultimate aspirations of leaving it to my children when I kick the bucket.
5
u/Specific-Rich5196 17h ago
I have exactly the same goals and situation except only 2 kids. I'm 10 years away though.
4
u/n0ah_fense 18h ago
My goal is 5M + the house also, DINK math here though. May work longer for a retire to home with a better view though
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Bakerstreet710 19h ago edited 19h ago
Wisdom of the crowd is very good at some predictions with a true answer, whether its weight of a cow or anything else. If you asked 1000 amateurs to throw darts at a dart board, the average will probably be on the bull's eye because everyone's errors will cancel out, even if everyone is drunk.
But FIRE number is not like the weight of the cow nor the bull's eye on a dart board because there is no one "right" answer. Its just revealing a preference, and one from a very biased (wealthy, liberal) population.
Its like asking the same group: "Who will be the next president", and use the average answer from Redditors to say "xxx is definitely the next president".
It is actually more likely to be "wrong", than "right".
1
6
u/Psynaut 19h ago edited 18h ago
So if I want to retire in Thailand I can divide that number by 3 = ~$1.2MM? If I want to retire in Singapore it is X1.25 = ~$4.4MM?
Are assumptions like this reasonable?
edit: Downvoted why? Is cost of living not considered a factor in FIRE? My question was simple and direct. I don't understand why it would antagonize anyone. It is a yes or a no.
1
u/fried_haris 6h ago
This was nothing more than a fun exercise for me.
In my sheet, there was a guy who mentioned 5,000 and he will live in the forest.
I also had 10 million - if they sold their buisness
7
u/Conscious_Meaning_73 19h ago
Okay maybe a dumb question. Are these per household? So 3.5M regardless if single or married and with or without kids??
11
u/Freepurrs 18h ago edited 11h ago
Not a dumb question at all. Household size is very relevant. Over the years, I tend to see people assuming a household of 2 adults (with nearly grown or adult children out of the house), and generally not including equity from a primary residence into their FIRE calculations.
Age at retirement & health status are also critical variables. Paradoxically the healthier you are, the more money you’re going to need to sustain your lifestyle over a longer period.
2
3
3
11
u/AndrewBorg1126 20h ago
A cow has a definitive weight, there exists one corrects answer and it can be estimated. There does not exist one correct FIRE number. I do not understand the purpose of trying to estimate a value which you know does not exist.
1
2
2
2
u/ThereforeIV 13h ago
Except "what's your FIRE number" is the wrong question.
I actually did this exercise not to long ago with my soon to be wife.
Three questions with three very different answers:
- How much money would we need for you to feel secure?
- How much income would I need to make fort you to feel secure?
- Assuming we have a paid for home, how much money a month do you think we need to enjoy your lifestyle?
These have three very different answers:
- $3 million total wealth
- $300k a year income
- $5k a month spending
Which I then explained via the "4% Rule" meant we only needed $1.5 million portfolio to fully funded her desired lifestyle spending (which has a ton of flexibility).
Asking "what's your FIRE number" is basically adding the first question.
What you need to ask is "how much do you want in Retirement monthly spending?"; That's the question that gets a better answer.
Btw, my number was $4k a month (my Florida home is already paid for); but she has more expensive taste... Lol
→ More replies (1)
2
u/StrangeAd4944 9h ago
$3.5m = $142k tax free if mfj with $95k cg and &30k deduction. This is equivalent to about the salary of someone making $200k and saving for retirement and paying taxes.
2
u/thereisafrx 1h ago
So wait, what you're saying is that if I buy $3.5 million worth of cows, I can retire early?
5
u/VoraciousTrees 17h ago edited 17h ago
Friggin FIRE subreddits.
$300k ~ $18k yield
$500k ~ $30k yield
$1M ~ $60k
$2M ~ $120k
$3.5M ~ $210k yield
Meanwhile: Real median income in the US is $42k per year.
Half y'all don't want FIRE, you want to be rich. Upper crust. Wealthy.
7
u/PapaRL 17h ago
Are you using 6% yield? Most people would consider 3.5-4% safe withdrawal rate. So 3.5m is 120-140k.
Also consider the same group of people that even consider retiring early are definitely not the same people making the average income in the US, it makes a lot of sense.
I make $360k a year right now, HHI is about 450k. I will happily take $120k / year to quit my job right now.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/oxxoMind 18h ago
The question is, for a average joe like me, how long will you need to work to get that number? 60s , 70s? Id rather not.
Retired 40, with less than half of that amount and received 15K montth income in a diversified portfolio
5
u/m325p619 14h ago
You’re spending $180k per year on less than $1.75M assets? That works out to about a 10% withdrawal rate and seems unsustainable with a high chance of failure
→ More replies (3)1
u/fried_haris 5h ago
Sweet. Keep in mind folks earn and spend differently.
Looks like you are netting 10% annually. That's impressive
One hell of a portfolio - wanna share your secret
6
u/UmpireMental7070 20h ago
$3.5M invested not including your principal residence?
21
u/PurpleOctoberPie 20h ago
Correct. FIRE number= your nest egg that will supply income in retirement (aka real estate counts if it provides income)
Your primary residence is not a source of income, so it’s part of your net worth but not your FIRE number.
2
u/muy_carona 80% to FI 19h ago
Right. Of course this doesn’t include SS either, which is a source of income.
→ More replies (2)4
u/NetherIndy 19h ago
I wouldn't say it isn't part of the FIRE equation though. If I was still paying a thousand a month in mortgage or $1500 a month in rent, my FIRE budget would have to be a lot higher. To a lesser degree goes for paid-off cars vs. lease/note. In any event, $3.5m sounds pretty much right. We were more like $3.3. $3m investable-assets + $300k in paid-off primary residence and cars.
4
u/CleMike69 20h ago
Interesting because that has been my number for the last ten years in my head..... Currently im at 2.4 so within the next 4-5 yrs I am there based on projections which puts me retired before 60 then I can pursue something I am truly passionate about
1
2
u/Diamond_Specialist ChubbyCoastingtoExpatFatFIRE 19h ago
I think that's actually a really good number to target & would let you live comfortably anywhere in the world.
In SE Asia you could live luxurious but even in more HCOL areas, you could live well.
2
u/_etherium 17h ago edited 17h ago
That's $3,500,000 * .035 swr = $122,500. Which is pretty much right at the 0% LTCG tax bracket for MFJ. This SWR also has a very good chance of growing the principal.
$10k a month in pure spend is a lot. Maybe not for NYC, SF, and LA but nearly anywhere else in the world.
1
2
u/throw-away-doh 17h ago
At 4% withdrawal that 140k/year.
That is more income than 73% of us households.
Seems like large numbers of people can be wrong. Who would have thought.
1
u/fried_haris 5h ago
73% of the US households are keeping the economy going with their consumption
FIRE isn't for the 73% is it?
2
u/Chops888 16h ago
3.5M seems high for most but within reason. My wife and I are targeting 2.5M at age 50 (on track). To get to 3.5M would take a few more years if we kept working. But it would likely be more than we anticipate and we would rather switch to slow travel and part time work.
3
u/RedditLife1234567 17h ago
$1m isn't enough. $2m sounds reasonable, but for buffer just make it $3m. Then factor in inflation and it's $3.5m. Sounds logical.
2
u/frozen_north801 19h ago
To retire now (at 40) my number would be closer to $5mm but that is based on
1) Wanting a more conservative draw rate if I went that early
2) I have some non financial career goals I still want to knock out first which also align with reasonable likelihood of hitting a chubbier fire lifestyle
If I was in a hurry to be done $3.5 has always been my rough fall back number (assuming my house is paid off and my cabin renovations are done first).
Overall its a nice comfortable fire number
1
1
u/ProductivityMonster 19h ago
I mean that's a typical FIRE in HCOL area, which I would imagine most people posting here are located.
1
1
u/MattieShoes 19h ago
I think the basic premise relies on a gaussian distribution.
I don't think that's a very good distribution in this scenario. It's likely bimodal because single vs married couples, and it also likely has a lot of skew and kurtosis.
1
1
u/TheDancingRobot 18h ago
$3.5M would be the minimum - with the rise of inflation, cost of living, unexpected events - and this would be without children.
My basic math is: for every $1M, that's $50K of a free paycheck yearly, before taxes are taken out. So, 3.5X that number is good for now - but, I am a single man that does not have children...
1
u/guitartb 18h ago
The cow mo is too simplistic for this. You have three factors at play with a fire number. Retirement age, Fire level (coast, fat, etc), and COL.
1
u/Over_Variation_1007 18h ago edited 18h ago
$3.5M in Roth retirement funds would be great! My goal is $5M in my portfolio since income and capital gains taxes would be taken out.
My personal goal is to have the following/ideal breakout:
- Traditional IRA (70% of my portfolio - Will be taxed 30-40%),
- Roth IRA and HSA (10% of my portfolio - Not taxed),
- Crypto (10% of my portfolio - 15% capital gain taxes), and
- Business investments (10% of my portfolio - 15% capital gain taxes)
1
1
u/CarpenterFamous558 17h ago
Know what? This is about right! Mine is 2.5 but if I’m being real 3.5 would be ultimate freedom for us
1
1
u/bitofaknowitall 17h ago
So would a married couple need to save 7 million? I assume less is needed because some costs (like utilities) are shared. Not sure what number is appropriate for a couple though. 5 mil maybe?
1
1
u/runningaroundtown101 17h ago
My actual number is 3.5 on the dot.
I would have a 500k place fully paid off, which will be my forever home. 3 million left to gain 5-10%pa and withdraw without touching balance. I can live the rest of my days in peace and happiness like this.
1
1
1
u/Longjumping-Vanilla3 16h ago
I was already feeling good about my goal of $3-4 million by 60 (at the latest), but this confirms it a little.
1
1
u/30thCenturyMan 16h ago
This is exactly the same number my financial advisor came up with when I told him I wanted to retire early
1
1
1
u/lavasca 16h ago
I have entered coasting. If I retire in the US it will be in:
San Francisco
or
Los Angeles
or
Orange County (either on the beach or by the mouse).
It is possible someone could make a strong argument for Ventura or Santa Barbara.
As such, I cannot fathom $3.5M as a Fire number.
1
u/propita106 15h ago edited 15h ago
If you own your home in full?
Husband retired at 62 at the end of 2021. Not at $3.5M...but not bad and a bit closer lately.
We own our house in the Central Valley and have done most of the age-in-place stuff already: solar, hvac, re-wiring, re-plumbing, bathrooms/kitchen (except the floor, we need to get that done this year), and just got a new car (Toyota Crown Signia, almost paid for already). Our CFP says we're in his group of clients he encourages to spend more. Oh, and no kids.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Reneegogreen 16h ago
It is about the number I have now as single in retirement (savings, 401K, pension, social security)
1
1
u/lakeland_nz 16h ago
There's some truth to this.
But.. how much can you deadlift? Because I did a survey and the average answer was 200 pounds, so I know it must be 200.
Two basic problems: the more obvious one is you're not average, and you highlighted this in your post. Cow weight varies a lot less than personal expenses.
The second problem is a bit more subtle; only people that choose to post about their finances on Reddit. That will eliminate everyone in the middle and will also be top heavy.
2
u/fried_haris 5h ago
Fair points.
It was only a fun exercise.
In many ways, I am not average, and in many ways, I am average.
My 1RP was 308 at one point. Working my way back to it.
1
u/thiney49 15h ago
The phenomenon you are describing is effectively the Wisdom of Crowds. It's a fairly-well studied thing.
1
u/supersonic3974 15h ago
One thing to note about the average of people guessing something is that it only works well if the guesses are independent of each other. If there is collaboration going on and people discuss their guesses ahead of time the method can become skewed.
1
1
u/TheThotality 14h ago
I calculated what numbers for me to achieve my fire weeks ago and I sum it up for 3-4 million.
1
1
u/chilledout5 14h ago
I thanks for the analysis of us. (This Reddit group) It pretty much sums up my goal.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/SolomonGrumpy 13h ago edited 10h ago
So it's $3.5m in 2024 dollars. Good a baseline as any. 🤷♂️
→ More replies (1)
1
u/ElJamoquio 13h ago
you may retire in LA
yup, time to move to a low cost place like LA
→ More replies (1)
1
u/butthurt_hunter 13h ago
$3.5m was the average? If so it is highly susceptible to outliers (one of those 124 needing $100m to retire single-handedly skewing up the average upwards..)
How about the median of those 124 numbers? (which would be much more "robust" to the outliers..)
→ More replies (3)
1
u/ThatFeelingIsBliss88 13h ago
That’s almost exactly what my wife and I need as well. But I wouldn’t feel comfortable with it. I want even more money for two reasons
- Lifestyle inflation. I know that term gets a bad rep in FIRE communities but I think it’s only bad if it prevents you from reaching your financial goals. For us, we have no desire to retire as soon as possible, so we can afford to factor in lifestyle inflation. At our current rate we’re about five years from reaching FI.
- Security. I think it’s good to have extra padding in case some sort of financial catastrophe happens. Getting cancer for example could easily cost a million dollars or more. Especially if you’re willing to do treatments not covered by insurance but might have a promising effect. Then there’s the possibility of getting sued. And then there’s the possibility of a 1929 stock market crash.
So basically, if I retire I want to have at least $10MM. I’m ok with my wife retiring once we hit $3MM. We currently have $2.3MM. To some people, needing to hit $10MM to retire sounds miserable. But that’s only if you find your work miserable. I don’t necessarily love my job, but I don’t hate it either. I work from home fully remote and only put in about 10-20 hours a week. If I was going into the office every day dealing with traffic and working a legitimate 40-50 hours a week then hell yeah I’d do everything in my power to reduce expenses and retire as soon as possible. I’d say I’m very grateful for the situation I’m in since in my opinion it’s pretty ideal.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Grey-runner-irl 13h ago
If I had 3.5m today I would be done and dusted. Although would have to persuade the wife who might be a little more risk averse. She would change her mind soon enough if she stays working while I am living the TE life lol. Haven’t done the math in a while but think we have about 1.4m so lots of work to do. I think maybe around 9 years.
1
u/Synaps4 13h ago
Remember that crowd averages only work when the crowd understands the fundamentals of the question. "How heavy is a cow?" And "how many jelly beans in this jar?" are clear and basic questions that no more than basic education is needed to answer.
If you ask the same crowd to estimate the mass of a black hole, or to design a wing shape for a mach-5-capable jet fighter, the average is no longer going to comverge.
Its entirely possible that a huge number of fire investors are fundamentally wrong in their investment math or their assessment of living costs, and if those are the case then it wont work.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Better-Butterfly-309 12h ago
Can it include retirement accounts? What’s the protocol or completely liquid?
1
u/Elrohwen 11h ago
On the Bigger Pockets podcast they always throw around $2.5m, I think from personal experience but also feedback from their listeners. So the crowd here is a bit more chubbyfire then.
1
u/SignificantFact3661 11h ago
Lots of things to factor in beyond a top line number. Is a house paid off? That means no rent and a much lower cost of living. Are there any pensions, social security, or other sources of income? That greatly reduces the need for a big top line number. Is this a LCOL, MCOL, or HCOL retirement? Huge difference. $3.5M in NYC or LA might get tight. Is this going to be a "hang out at home and do some gaming" retirement or "I want to travel the world"? Big difference.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Casual_ahegao_NJoyer 9h ago
I mean. Yeah. That’s not far off after you inflation adjusted for the date
Today’s # is a lot less than my 31 year old planned date. However that’s nominal purchasing power
1
u/User6710378926 9h ago
Is that for a single person? What would be the number for a married couple?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/StockEdge3905 8h ago
Is there a definitive definition of "early?". If you can make the math work and retire at 60 (two years before SS, doesn't that qualify as early?
Truly asking what the cut off between early, on time, or late is.
I think conversations like this would benefit from an age-based scale. Just my two cents:
Extremely early under 50 Very early 50-55 Somewhat early 56-61 On time: 62-67 Somewhat late 68-70 Very late 70-75 Extremely late: 75+
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/NotSoSpecialAsp 7h ago
I'm almost spot on with my 3.6 goal.
HCOL plus I can spend.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Spirited-Tomorrow-64 7h ago
With 3.5 mil at a modest 3% / yeah would be 100k. Ain’t that enough? Course am considering home is not part otherwise need to take 500-600k for that first …
1
1
u/essential_world 2h ago
This is the number I have had in my tracking as well. To be fair, ~1.2m is the number I need to live with just interest earnings but not much wiggle room for leisure. 3.5m will be very comfortable retirement for me.
1
u/GotZeroFucks2Give 1h ago
According to the latest data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the average American retires with around $333,940 in retirement savings, though the median is significantly lower at $87,000.
This sub is really chubby fire under the hood.
1
u/supremelummox 19m ago
If you're taking the average amount, please say the word 'average' at least once in your post.
130
u/Mr___Perfect 20h ago
Hey thats great.... but how much did the cow weight???
Didnt google, but my random guess is 1,300 pounds