Hacker News Reader

I think this is a false dichotomy. My wife and I worked through our 20s, but regularly took vacations. We flew to NYC from LA at least 2x per year from 25-30. We had season ski passes. We lived frugally but well.

I was in grad school, she was a consultant. Our income was solidly lower middle class for LA, and we still managed to save 25-40% of our income per year.

Now that I've got a kid and am in my 40s, I've taken a year off, and I don't think I'd be bored in "early retirement". I'd probably spend time with my daughter, do more camping, and work on intellectual side projects (I have more than I can count).

The trick has been: I don't try to keep up with other people, I follow my own passions. I know how to cook, and to make my own fun. I'm curious and I like find out answers on my own. I never took on credit card debt.

I'm lucky because I had support from my parents through early college. I got student loans and supported myself after sophomore year or so. (I'm strategically still paying the minimum on those loans fwiw.) otherwise I stayed out of debt until I got a mortgage in my late 30s.

So, it is possible to do both. But I have noticed that I have a better ability to control my desire for acquisition than most people, and a decent amount of frugality in most areas of my life.

Finally!

I've struggled with this... not personally, but watching other people going crazy with whatever money they get and then complaining about not resting enough, not traveling enough, not having fun enough.

They go ahead and ONLY take full 2 weeks vacations, never even trying spreading some of those days here and there, perhaps right next to a holiday to make it a long one, and then complain later that they are burned out...

Most people even with means complain about some of us doing this normally (we don't have to travel the world every weekend, come on), and you talk with them, and if they just stopped "wanting to live outside their means", they could actually accomplish it, even if little by little.

I commend you for living such a life, because even if none of our lives are perfect, some of us enjoy it as best we can. :)

OK if you were in grad school, ski passes, multiple flights to NYC per year, living in LA and saving 20-40% of your income, your wife must have been making a hell of a lot as a consultant.

How much do you think all this cost?

Ski passes for 2: $500 at mammoth. (Yes, the prices have definitely increased.) We'd sometimes drive up just for the day (leave 4am, back 9pm) to save on lodging. This was fairly doable in my 20s.

Flights to NYC: we'd book on cheap off-days, and I think round trip was usually about $400 for both of us. LA<->NYC is a very competitive route and deals can be amazing. I learned to use Priceline like a pro, so we typically stayed in manhattan for about $100/night or less(!) for fancy hotels that usually charge $300+. We often would stay in 2-3 different hotels to save on money.

So all-in for these activities was probably about $6k-7k per year. Grad stipends were $25k, which covered rent plus most of the vacation, and my wife had an entry-level job at a decent firm.

Didn't feel like a stretch in part because we were really flexible, but we were careful about how we spent our money.

No cable TV, for example. That shit steals your time and money (doubly so because the ads encourage you to spend more money).

> many people who get into FIRE commit themselves to a lifetime of slight misery instead of learning to be okay with living life when they can

Source for this assertion?

I've been in contact with various people at various points on the FIRE journey, and I haven't seen a lot that go "too far" towards being miserly, cheap, and miserable. Especially when they are high earners like the parent comment. They live lifestyles that may appear lavish, but are done while spending well below their means, because they are also investing in their future, while being mindful about spending today.

The point of FIRE isn't that you invest in your future. I think it's unreasonable to say the opposite of FIRE is to save nothing, when it is in fact saving at good rate while aiming to retire in your 60s. My point is that aiming to retire early - like 20 years early, when you're in you're 40s and still eager to work - is likely to make your life miserable if you're the kind of person who actually enjoys work and can commit to goals like FIRE. That's what I've seen in communities I know where people FIRE. Hell, I know many people in my parents' generation who retired in their 60s and still want to work, and end up not dipping into their savings at all.

I'm sure there's tons of people who love being on a FIRE path. It's a lovely goal with self-reinforcing metrics that is easily gamified. And I bet your first year off work also feels great, which is why I encourage everyone to take a sabbatical every 10 or so years.

> The point of FIRE isn't that you invest in your future

Huh? "Financial Independence, Retire Early" Sure sounds like you're saving money and investing it in such a fashion that at some future date, you're no longer obligated to do paid work -- before the traditional retirement age.

> I think it's unreasonable to say the opposite of FIRE is to save nothing, when it is in fact saving at good rate while aiming to retire in your 60s.

Again you confuse me. Most people do not save enough for a solid retirement in their 60s, so it does not seem like you can say that is the "opposite" of FIRE. The "opposite" is simply being financially dependent on your working income (at least) until traditional retirement age.

"Retire early" does not force you to "never work again" if it's something you desire. It means you have the financial independence and means to decide how to spend your time. If you really like working for money, being financially independent does not prevent you from doing it, and I can't see how it will make you miserable.

The best part of FIRE is the Financial Independence bit. When my boss asks me to do something, I'll do it if I think it's a good idea, and ignore it otherwise, because what's the worst that can happen?

> I'd rather enjoy my life in my 20s than save money to do nothing in my 40s.

I think this is a lie that people who are bad with money tell themselves, that the only two options available are to spend without restraint or live miserably frugal.

Age is a thing, can't do as many of the fun physical things when you're a lot older

Aging is a nasty thing ugh, the way your bones get weak and your spine curls and you see old people hunched looking down at the ground when they walk

The truth is that there are some things better experienced in younger years. I can't imagine backpacking across Europe is better in your 50's than it would be in your 20's, and if you're doing something with a chance of injury, you bounce back a lot faster the younger you are.

But I really think you're underestimating how active even the average 70 year old retiree can be.

That just comes down to luck.

Some people at 70 are in great health, some not so much.

Disagree. Like financial independence, physical fitness in later years is something you can work towards and is well within nearly everyone's reach.

Granted, both take focus and long term discipline which people who lack both chalk up to luck.

> that the only two options available are to spend without restraint or live miserably frugal

When did I say that? I have a 35% savings rate and still am able to spend happily. The point is that you don't need to aim to retire early. Set a target savings rate, spend the rest - enjoy your life instead of trying to maximize savings so you can retire early.

There's a hidden assumption there that software industry pay will remain as high as it has and that the economy will be as good as it has in the past. I'm not sure I would be comfortable making that assumption in 2026 given that we seem to be entering an era of global instability and AI driven transformation.

"Miserable" is subjective obviously. If you're regularly working evenings and weekends at your high paying law firm, I'd characterize that as miserable. If you're living cheaply in some exurban place but can only see your friends or family twice a week, I'd characterize that as miserable. But I can't speak to anyone else's state of mind.

I agree. To add a data point, I used to squirrel all my money away, because I was afraid that if I didn't, there wouldn't be any left at retirement. It's like I was inadvertently following FIRE principals.

It wasn't until I created a simple monthly budget that I realized that I can pay myself first, pay my bills and I still have plenty money left over to enjoy today and 10, 20, etc. years down the line.

FIRE is achieved primarily by not buying a lot of "stuff". Living a great life and having incredible experiences is relatively inexpensive and you don't need a lot of expensive stuff to do it. If you are being miserable then you're doing it wrong.

FIRE should really just be a continuation of what you are already doing, just with less responsibility and financial risk. It isn't about saving up for a permanent vacation. It shouldn't even be conceptualized as a "vacation".

Most people I know who are FIREd are busy living a mundane life they find personally satisfying. They aren't having an existential crisis.

> It isn't about saving up for a permanent vacation. It shouldn't even be conceptualized as a "vacation".

"Permanent vacation" is permanent time off work, not a holiday. If you're continuing doing what you're doing, why quit? Why not just keep working and save 25% of your income instead of being frugal, saving 40-50% and retiring early to stay frugal? If you're the kind of person who is hard working enough to make good money, you're not going to enjoy retirement and living a "mundane" life - you might as well keep working on something you're passionate about and make money off it.

The only reason to FIRE is if your life's grand ambition somehow cannot be monetized at all, which in the current day is harder and harder to conceive.

> The only reason to FIRE is if your life's grand ambition somehow cannot be monetized at all, which in the current day is harder and harder to conceive.

This is a non sequitur. The ability to monetize something has no bearing on the optimal way to go about it unless money for its own sake is your sole objective in life. Being required to monetize an activity frequently produces a strictly inferior outcome by the standards of the person doing it. Not needing to optimize for monetization allows people to prioritize things like craft, quality, sustainability, etc.

The discourse around "enshittification" is almost entirely about the consequences of this dynamic.

Can I ask, how old are you now? I notice this sort of 'black and white' thinking in a lot of younger folks. You don't have to live like a miser (especially in tech!) to be able to FIRE. You simply have to be disciplined and consistently save and invest instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses.

I admit, I was probably more frugal in my 20's than I should have been, but 40 something me is very grateful to 20 something me, and honestly my life is so much more stress free now.

You're the fifth person to assume me being against FIRE means you should burn all your money, which is kind of the problem with the mindset!

In fairness, if I'm the fifth person to misinterpret what you wrote, you did not do a good job of explaining your position.

>If you're the kind of person who can FIRE, you're not the kind of person who'll be happy on permanent vacation at the age of 40.

Why do you think so? Some people just have more/less expensive tastes and wants than others.

Not because your tastes are expensive, but because you'll want to do productive work well into that time frame.

Having the resources to retire is a great way to do productive work, because much maybe most highly compensated work isn’t productive at all.

I think the issue is a widespread equation of "productive work" and "[wage] labor". Of course, a lot of people may not do much outside of work beyond watch TV (though how much of that is from tiredness from working at their job so much and dealing with the rest of life's obligations?), but plenty could fill their days with productive work that just happens not to align with what corporate institutions want to hire people for.

re: misery due to some assumed inherent drive - some people work hard so that they can slack off later, work on something else entirely different that doesn't pay as well, or worry their field or the planet doesn't have that long. there are many motivations and getting there doesn't require privation but minimal need or rational consideration of tradeoffs.