Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement (sort of) plan

>we get more long term happiness from experiences than from thing

That doesn't mean "don't spend money on things." Things can and do (and should!) enable experiences.

I'll buy a high-end laptop I'll spend a great many hours using it, and experience of using it is better than the experience of using something cheaper. (Seriously, when I see people fighting their POS trackpads and 15-second seek times to do basic window management operations, it's no wonder they're not into computers.)

I'll buy a good car because the experience of driving something comfortable and responsive with a pleasant interior is better than the experience of driving a shit heap, and I actually like driving.

I'll buy $500 headphones because listening to music on them is amazing.

I'll buy a $500 DSLR because having the shutter actually respond when I press the shutter button is amazing.

We can even go less obvious: I'll buy fashionable clothes because people will treat me with more respect and interest if I look put-together.

> For example, we know that people greatly enjoy being in flow.

I have no idea what this phrase means. Could you expand?

It looks like you're also mentioned in the article—I like that your approach seems to be more analytical and less "cultish" than Mustache's.

Do you think Zurich offers any net advantages over NYC or the Bay when it comes to aggressive savings? It seems like salaries are about the same and living costs are higher (at least based on the few times I've visited).

Where/how do you invest in CH? Vanguard is much more expensive than in the US.

US citizens need not apply, right? I mean, due to FATCA a US citizen can't open a bank account in Switzerland. Makes it hard to cash that fat paycheck. Or do you have a way around that?

Regarding the last point: one of the most common deathbed regrets is to have worked too hard. An extension can be made for being overly frugal: leading your life hamstering cash is not much fun, and ultimately, pointless.

A common pitfall of frugality is to save money at the expense of your personal happiness. Example: In many companies, people head out to lunch together, grab a sandwich or whatever, eat together, and try to have a social time. That costs about $3300 a year, assuming 220 working days with the price of lunch at $15. That's a pretty large expense, and if you frame it solely in terms of food, probably not worth it for most. MMM would say that you should bring a packed lunch to work. However, I would argue that it is absolutely worth it for most office workers: chances are their jobs are in some way unpleasant, and if they bring a lunch from home, it's only a small step to eating that embarrassing, soggy PB&J in front of the screen, working and missing out on that small break. That can be very demotivating.

Beyond that, I think that some contrarian cases can be built for high-income, high-expense lifestyles. For one, an expensive lifestyle can be a great way to meet other successful people, which may open doors to opportunities. (There's a caveat on this: some kinds of expensive goodies, like vacations to Zermatt or living in a great area, are probably much better investments than buying a $15k handbag.)

Spending money on great experiences while young is also probably worth it. Having had "boring" 20s and 30s is another common regret, and it's quite feasible to prevent that, if you're confident in your earnings potential later on.

I think blogs like his seek to do for your lifestyle what meditation does for your thoughts--make you aware of your choices and their effects. At their best, they enlighten you toward a more conscious design of your own lifestyle. I'm not "anti-mustachian," but I can speak to the choices I've made.

I could be saving waaaay more, but I have no burning desire to optimize my lifestyle toward freedom. I'm super lucky that I enjoy my work. It's not fun 100% of the time and I'm not free to come and go as I please without consequences, which is something MMM especially optimizes for.

I'm optimizing to always be doing interesting work with people more intelligent or creative than me. Right now this is best accomplished by doing good work for companies with deep pockets so that I can do the fun stuff. I also optimize for exciting experiences and good connections with people. Sometimes those two optimization goals are at odds, but I've managed the cognitive dissonance by being more loosey goosey with my priorities than MMM advocates.

This has led to immense fun, personal satisfaction, and growth. I've lived and worked abroad. I make big, silly art. I'm floored by some of the people I work with. I'm lucky to have several big friend group--often the result of working on fun stuff together and then continuing those relationships outside of their original contexts.

All that said, I might totally change my tune if I had a kid and wanted to build a family or I suddenly wasn't making good money.

I'm a "cautious skeptic" mustachian because MMM's net worth was fueled by the historic bull run in asset markets during the early--mid parts of his professional life.

I hesitate to be fully devout in the belief that asset markets will always produce outsized returns like it did for him.

> In a way, his methods make me feel relieved that a particular income benchmark or the wild growth of a business is not needed to lead a happy/sufficient life

Are you sure about that? He worked during the boom era (1998 to 2007) and the article says he saved 250k in five years, which indicates that he had a very good salary.

In addition, he says that he and his wife still work occasionally (and she was also a developer in the boom era) and that he makes 400k/year from the site.

I imagine that it's much easier to retire at 30 if you have a crapton in the bank made on a high salary in a good economy (when you bought your houses [one of which they rent out]) and then have recurring income that can pad out your savings in event of any emergencies that might come up.

Someone who's budgeted 30k a year for the rest of his life and doesn't have the kind of job/expertise to do random contract work and retires could easily find himself completely ruined by one bad accident.

I consider myself a little bit of an anti-mustachian. But I'm sure the majority of Americans would probably consider me quite mustachian. I spend significantly less than 10% of my gross income on housing. I almost never take a cab when I could take the subway. I save enough so that for all practical purposes I never have to worry about money. But at the same time I spend substantially more than the mustachian 24k / year. I don't particularly enjoy cooking, so MMM would consider my food expenditures to be grossly high.

My view is that people should live in a way that maximizes their happiness. MMM seems to enjoy taking frugality to the extreme. But I'm different. That lifestyle would not make me happy at all. In the past I have lived with very little left over for savings. That way of living also caused a lot of stress any time unexpected expenses pop up. It absolutely did not maximize my happiness. I'm fairly careful with my money naturally, so my current mode of living doesn't require any effort on my part. It leaves me free to make what many would consider pretty large splurges from time to time while still maintaining a nice cushion for unexpected expenses as well as a nicely increasing investment portfolio that should allow me to retire well before the standard retirement age.

So no, while you might not be able to say I have fully unabated spending habits, MMM might say that I do. And in that case I would satisfy all three of your points.

> Just curious, are there any anti-mustachians who 1) bust ass to maximize earnings, 2) have unabated spending habits, 3) believe they are happier to live such a lifestyle?

I'd classify myself as a bit of an anti-mustachian in the sense that I pay 0 attention to 99% of purchases. I don't think twice about going out to dinner regularly, buying a round of drinks, or going on random trips. It's rare for me to look at a receipt.

Despite spending freely, I still manage to save around $80-100k annually.

Increasing earnings is far more effective than trying to minimize earnings. Trying to cut your spending by 25% is pretty challenging, but making 25% more is totally doable and often involves just getting a few competitive job offers. As Ramit Sethi sometimes says, skipping lattes never actually lets someone retire early.

A lot of the things MMM recommends are actually economically irrational for developers (unless you enjoy them). Why would I ever cook when I can earn $150 from the equivalent time and get a nice meal delivered for $20?

The only bit of spending I pay attention to is rent, because that can eat up a huge portion of your salary if left unchecked—particularly in the places with the highest salaries.

Honestly, I feel that everything in moderation is a good rule to follow. I spend a more than I perhaps should but I enjoy my life.

As long as I am putting money away into savings each month and not going backwards I see it as a win. Going to extremes where you're worried about whether or not you put pieces of plain pizza in with mushroom pizza I feel is a bit too far for my liking.

My natural burn rate is well below my income and I like my job. It's very nice that money is mostly abstracted away: I swipe my card when I want to, don't look at my accounts or pay stubs that much, and maintain solid financial health.

As long as I don't lust after anything too ridiculous, money isn't a point of tension in my life. I certainly wouldn't want to make it one.

I pretty much do this. Not that I am an "anti-mustachian" by philosophy, I just have had pretty good paying jobs since the day I got out of school and have spent a lot all throughout... The money I have saved has been automatically deducted from this or that... the rest... poof!

I take slight issue with the fact that he made the lion's share of his savings riding the tech bubble of the late 90's.

> He got a computer-engineering degree in 1997, and skipped the graduation ceremony to begin working at a company near Ottawa called Newbridge Networks. This was the early upslope of the dot-com boom. He started at forty-one thousand dollars a year, with no savings or possessions except “a bike, a backpack, and a diploma.” He made the rookie mistake (“what a clueless young man!!!”) of buying a sports car with a loan from his sister. He got his first raise soon afterward, to fifty-seven thousand and six hundred dollars. By the end of year one, he’d saved five thousand dollars. A year later, he had twenty-three thousand. By year five, a quarter of a million.

It's quite apparent that yes, Adeney has done a ton of work to be rigorous enough to have built and to maintain the endowment.

However... it feels like he built this retirement nest egg on a rare period in the markets' history. I'd question how repeatable it is.

> I don't spend on any such thing, track all my expenses, make a good high-tech income, and still spend most of my earnings.

I have to question your story then.

Because I do drop big bucks on fancy restaurants and liquor, yet I still manage to save a ton every month.

Two hypotheses:

1. Your "good high-tech income" isn't good enough. Anything under $125k globally is not good. More if you're senior and in SF/NYC.

2. You're spending too much on rent. Particularly in tech hubs, this is a much more decisive factor in your financial health than whether you cook your own food.

> I don't spend on any such thing, track all my expenses, make a good high-tech income, and still spend most of my earnings.

If you track all your expenses, you should have a pretty good idea of where your spending is going. The question then becomes how you could reduce that.

Many people spend a majority of their income on housing alone; that's can be one of the harder items to fix, but one of the most critical. A long commute creates a pile of expenses, above and beyond an expensive or inefficient vehicle. An expensive area can worsen both of those problems; it's reasonable to evaluate whether you get a high enough salary differential to compensate for the area you're in.

Past big items like those, the details tend to vary greatly between people. There are a pile of case studies posted on the MMM site, analyzing specific budgets.

I thought his trick was to earn lots of money, and your future wife too, when you're young, and then go move to Colorado and have nearly no living expenses. ;)

A very simple allocation of 70% stocks and 30% long term treasury bonds has a 6.23% CAGR over the past 15 years.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-all...

Just a note for people outside of the States.

I've seen this before, and live in Ireland. It's a very different story here, with taxation on ETF index funds at 40% on gains, calculated every seven years. From my perspective, the 4% rule just does not count. Perhaps running a business is a better way in Ireland, for example.

The article vaguely mentions a plan of giving it away to charity, which seems reasonable enough to me. If he's just as happy with his current life, why should he feel obligated to spend it?

If he's like most people with income, eventually he'll get tired of being poor and start spending more.