OldSchoolSnapper

Every time FIRE comes up (at least the MMM version of it) in a community that is less familiar with it, there are a bunch of misconceptions and misunderstandings. The version of it promoted on the blog is as risk-averse as it gets. He is basically protected against anything besides death. He’s written extensively about all the common reasons people say his plan doesn’t work, multiple times. If you poke around the website, you will find rebuttals to all of those concerns. It has been replicated by many, many people. There is little no risk if it is followed to the letter. But perhaps the biggest misconception is that his plan is not on money-centric as you think. A big reason his budget is so low, is because he has trained himself to enjoy free or very low cost activities. Nature is his main source of recreation. He outsources nothing. He has replaced his own roof, windows, HVAC system. He spends a ton of time in the outdoors. His family has one small vehicle, which they very rarely use for out of town travel. Almost 100% of his travel is done by bicycle, he has even rigged up a cargo to his bike for trips to get lumber, etc. He rejects cable, fancy phones, and useless trinkets. He rarely runs his dryer. Anything you can think of, he is doing it. He didn’t wake up one day and know how to the more complicated things, he learned them. His blog alone is bringing in half a million dollars per year, but he continues to live that way. He’s an amazing guy, but the point of the blog isn’t for people to look at it and go “I can’t travel by bike because I have 4 kids.” It’s to take what you can and apply it to your own life. The blog is more about betterment, how we have cluttered our lives with consumption and waste and how many of things we have grown to accept as built-in expenses to life are much more optional than we think they are. Too many critics stop by and just start throwing out excuses for why he was able to do what he did and they never could. They’re missing the point entirely. Everybody, and I mean everybody, can trim things if they really want to. People just have this nature of resisting whenever someone comes along and has found a way to “beat the system” so to speak. I follow a personal finance community, and often people drowning in debt stop by for advice. To a T, their story is almost always very similar. “My mortgage is $1800 a month and I am paying $450 for my car and $367 for student loans. I am drowning what do I do?” The first person will tell them to sell their car, and they will, almost 100% of the time, reply that they can’t because of XYZ and the car is great and they need it. I honestly believe about 75% of finance problems are due to people simply not being honest with themselves about needs. The strategy of the blog is absolutely not “save a pile of cash and hope it’s 0 when you die." It is far and away more a lifestyle movement than a money one.

I had more time to really go back and re-read and I agree with your assessment. I think it's fair; but the first couple was kidding themselves and put the cart waaaaaaay before the horse. The couple with $600k retired with 50% of want they thought they'd need... I get why he mentioned Suze Orman too, but I personally can't stand her

I'm sorry, but that article is really poorly done. I think if you shared that with the FIRE community, it would rightly get ridiculed. I fully suspect MMM is going to have a blog about that ripping it apart, because it is really bad. That first woman does not have anywhere close to the capital she needed to shut things down. His outline calls for securing 20x your annual spending when you "retire." They did not. He thinks crypto is stupid; it was a cornerstone of their plan. They had a horrible grasp on their actual spending habits as well. There are extensive guides for handling the health insurance questions as well. These people did not do their diligence. These people aren't FIRE. They are really bad planners who thought they were FIRE. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have achieved FIRE. If you have the will to power through and the income to save enough early, it works. It did not work for me, but I am honest about why. It was my fault, not the strategy's. These people are really terrible examples. If I retire tomorrow with $25 that doesn't mean FIRE is flawed. That read had a very strange propaganda feel to it.

Disappointing. Didn't bother going to dugout for game used stuff, and they did have nice tees. Some prices $1-5. They had playoff stuff too, but not the one I wanted, the lighter blue playoff hoodie. They did have Defend MKE tees and hoodies and some other hoodie about the pennant. There was NLDS stuff as well and it was priced very reasonably. The one playoff item I grabbed the tag on was 65% off from $35. Didn't get my hoodie though. You are better off showing up at 8pm unless you want something super limited. I can't imagine Friday or Saturday is as bad as this either.

It's an absolute disaster. I'm here so no point in leaving now but there is an hour wait just to get inside. Nobody verifying SSH.

From the article it sounds like outsourcing it was the norm around the league until recently. As someone in the retail industry I am guessing the reason for it was that the contracted company had established relationships with vendors. It is much easier to do it that way than for the Brewers to get agreements with Majestic, BDA, Nike, etc., whatever companies are all in the stores. That would be a lot of work for a large organization whose speciality isn't retail to take on. But the landscape has changed and teams are much more involved in the retail side than they used to be.

SSH discount won't go away. That would set off a firestorm.

That's just captive audience economics. People will always pay for something right in front of them at a place they already are. Same reason people overpay for stuff at Disney World. Kohl's carries the same shirt, Walmart probably does too now. But you're there, you're in the mood and you want that craving satisfied. That is how most people's brains work. The prices will be lower though, how much lower, not sure. There is no middle party to share profits with so it naturally would be passed to the consumer. I actually didn't even know the Brewers didn't run the stores.

Not buying a round after you've had 3 or routinely avoiding the tab for a meal you took part is not frugal, it's just douchey.

They don't go to bars. Lol. That's specifically in one of the MMM blogs. They opt for campfires with friends with store-bought beer at in-home get togethers, but there's a specific part where they attack the bar life. It's hard to disagree with any of it from a financial perspective, but obviously, I went to a lot of bars. I don't go to them anymore, but a $10 shot that cost the venue $12 for the entire bottle is kind of funny. I get it, and I did it, but it's funny.

This was my position for many years but it was bore mostly out of the fact that no one helped me. If someone had, I'd probably feel very different. Once I had kids and was better with money than my parents, the attitude to shifted more toward "Well if I can, why wouldn't I?" The idea of my kids going to college and merely studying without worrying about the financial aspect sounds incredible to me. Or just doing the "I love you, here is $50k for your first house." I can't imagine how good something like that would have felt. Is it best for them? I think that varies person to person. Some people get handouts and continue working very hard; others do not...I think that is for the people doling it out to decide. But as I went through those experiences and admitted to myself that the only reason I was upset about it was my own jealously, I got past shaming people who give their kids a lot of money...If I were in position to do it, I wound up thinking I would have done the same. I'll stop it short of doing things like taking out a 2nd mortgage so they can go to UNC or using my 401k to pay for their Hawaiian wedding. But practical things that are expensive? Idk what I'll do, but I'm more open to it than I used to be.

I go back and forth on the inheritance stuff. Really, whether or not there is significant money to pass on depends on how early I wish to stop working. I'm fairly certain I could stop in the early 50s, but that assumes I am only helping with college a little bit, and likely not helping a ton with houses, extended education, weddings, etc. I was married in a backyard, but if I had the option I may choose to help them out more. But the prospect of working and basically pocketing my entire salary every year with no debts to pay any longer and no children to take care of, and being able to help family so freely with my work money sounds extremely nice. Of course, I got zero help with school and made it work. I go back and forth between thinking it's better to make them figure it out and wanting to provide help I did not get. I don't think there is a good or bad way to go about it, and maybe it depends a lot on what the child grows up to be. If it's some burnout stoner who constantly disappoints you, you probably feel less enthusiastic about handing them boat loads of cash. As far as SS, my parents took it early out of necessity. My mom's health declined badly and she stopped working in the early 60s. My Dad makes good money but they were always terrible planners. What came in, went right out. He still works, but collects SS, I believe he took the benefit at 66. They needed it or my mom would not have been able to stop so early. My Mom is extremely not likely to live to 70 which would be August of 2019; I think SS is a play it by ear thing. If you don't have to take it, don't.

I don't know enough about this stuff but isn't one of them now Milwaukee's only "full power" station or something like that, meaning it has a stronger signal than the others? I vaguely remember someone I know being happy about that. I don't know how anyone listens to this stuff. I always do when I want to make fun of the callers. The content is not super great and the hosts rarely know more than a respected poster on Brewerfan. The odds of me getting breaking news from there too is pretty small. I think your post sort of answers itself though. People that want music have their own streaming service or mix for that; they're not passively listening to radio. Guessing the analysts have figured out people will listen to sports babble more readily than music.

What happened to "If I'm back it's here and nowhere else" or whatever. I guess $8 million happened, but still funny.

Rodgers is having a bad season, but I think it's a tad pre-emptive to say he's no longer what he was. This has happened before and Bob McGinn declared him no longer elite like 3-4 years ago only to see him go on a tear right after. Midseason 2014 there were whispers that Brady was coming undone. His mechanics have been worse this season. There is a story out today actually dissecting his sloppy footwork this year. That is all stuff you can coach. His arm and legs look like the same old guy to me. Frustration is usually a driver when the basics start falling apart. I also think keeping 6 players is just a bit extreme. Every roster is like 70% role players, it's not like they will go out and replace every guy and be better for it. Martinez etc. and the guys you mentioned aren't mega stars but they are components of successful teams. They probably have the 6-8 bona fide really good players that you mentioned. A handful of players that are just guys will become really good players eventually. I'll repeat that I don't think they're far off at all. This team is a LOT like the '08 version. They need a good draft again and a couple big adds, but I think they're a lot closer than the frustration of this season lets on.

Here's my problem with %s: Let’s just say for the sake of argument two families of 4 live next to each other. Same schools, roughly same house, both drive an Rav4 and a Civic. Family A makes $90k. Family B $135k. Family A sets aside 10% gross = $9k. Family B does the same = $13.5k You can quickly see the problem here. If they stop at 10, family B is spending a ton of money on probably some not really useful stuff. Chances are if they are doing that, their lifestyle is a lot less sustainable than A’s once the money stops rolling in during the golden years. This is why the spending figures are much more useful to you than a gross % for retirement. Only once you’ve locked in your spending do you have a guess at what you need to retire. It may be a lot more than 10 and could be less. I get why it exists, because some people benefit from having that hard number to plan around, but once your income starts creeping into the 6 figures I think you need to re-evaluate things.

The actual recommendation is all over the place, but it is a dumb thing to get into, really. 10 is conventional, reality is more like 15, shooting between those two is most people's realistic target. But I have seen it as high as 25% for millennials but that is typically from doomsday outlets. It's a general guideline, and like most general guidelines it ignores a ton of nuance. It's better than 0, but why would a a household with a $150k income next door to one with a $90k income save the same % for retirement? That's a very common scenario. A more useful metric would be to pin down your annual spending to the penny and go from there. Minimize cost as practically as you can for the life you want to live, and see what's left over. If it's more than 10% you can do yourself a favor, but I wouldn't want to set aside 10% for saving and call it a day. I think the 10% target is useful for Dave Ramsey type followers, people that won't save a dime if they aren't given an explicit target like that.

I still can't believe they can get away with that. Utter insanity.

Does either of you have an HSA offered through work? It's ridiculous any way you slice it, but that would help a little bit.

I don't think the team is missing 3-4 stars. They have Rodgers, Adams and a RB that is getting over 6 yards a pop. That defense has a lot of talent, it's just green. Clark is a star, Martinez is right there, Alexander looks very, very good. There have been others looking like the real deal too. They do need one impact edge rusher, and some veteran help in the secondary, but just that and some time I think this is a contending team.

Yeah, I also think that figure is a little low, but there is really no point to continue spinning wheels other than to say I think cable is one of the absolute worst consumer products on the market and quabbling over the fee is missing the bigger point here. The claim that a monthly expenditure of $60-100 isn't significant just flies right in the face of FIRE and I'm not doing a good job of explaining why. That community is about betterment and enrichment and hippie stuff, etc, and that is not a byproduct of cable. It isn't just the fee. It's that you're paying a fee to sit on your rear and watch TV. Its the opposite of efficiency, which is what FIRE actually is about, maximizing efficiency. Going to Lambeau with your college buddies or fine dining with your wife once a year isn't comparable because it enriched you in a way plodding down to watch TV doesn't.

This really isn't about cable, it's about the concept that $60 isn't a lot of money, which is a very typical non-FIRE mentality. The leading FIRE guy at the moment is Mr. Money Mustache, whom I assume at least a few are familiar with. His whole mantra is that early retirement is a series of good $10 decisions. I've read his literature for years and buy into a lot, but not all of what he says. $60 not being a lot of money is exactly the kind of thing he writes about all the time, which is why it attracted my attention. You started the thread, so it surprised me to hear you say it. I'm just pointing out that it flies directly in the face of FIRE, sorry if it is coming across as insulting or something. And again, FIRE is about more than just eating Ramen and shopping Walmart, it's more of a "buy it for life" community. Spending money on things that truly make you happy or increase your output or both...and endlessly pursuing value and efficiency. Spending a lot a few times per year on a concert with friends or taking your wife to a special dinner is something they would "allow," cable TV isn't, is what I was trying to get at.

FIRE is about maximizing all those expenditures. Someone who lives fire cuts cable, has a minimalist house, cooks their own meals and uses leftovers...they do all of those things, not just pick one of them. I'm not seeing your logic here though. $60 a month is a good chunk of change. Honestly, it just sounds to me like you have cable and are feeling like you have to justify it. A lot of this country is scraping to get by and would be served pretty well putting an extra $60 in an IRA. I think a blanket statement that $60 isn't significant is pretty ignorant. Equating that with fine dining on your anniversary is about as apples to oranges as it gets...and the "meal" isn't $500, the night is. ...but I've spent $800 on a meal and it was worth every penny...a far more memorable life experience eating at NoMa than Law and Order reruns. I'd also all but guarantee I'm spending less on food than the average American, just that when I decide to go out, it's going to be nice, not Applebee's, I'll just only do it a handful of times a year. Maybe I am more FIRE than I thought.

Let be explain it better. FIRE at its core is about efficiency and getting value more than it is about money. Cable is one of their favorite targets because it is one of the worst values out there for the consumer – a high monthly fee for marginal entertainment that encourages you to sit on your butt and be unproductive. FIRE’s issue with cable really has more to do with the fact that isn’t a good use of your time than the bill. But another part of fire is how much waste is built into the typical American budget. So if you want to split hairs over the $60, the point is if you think $60 for cable isn’t significant, you are more likely OK with $125 for a phone, $425 for your pickup truck, etc. It has more to do with consumerism than just the $60-$80 for cable you are hung up on. It’s more about people not thinking about their money enough.

I've been paying 34.99-39.99 for Internet for 3 years, simply by calling like you said and threatening to cancel. I don't bother with TV, because I think it's awful, but I'm simply never going to agree that $60/mo is some throwaway money. That's $4k in a 5-year period assuming a constant rate, which it is not. Run that amount per year through an index for 30 years and tell me it's not significant for the average Joe, which is the crux of this conversation and the basis of FIRE. You can argue that anything isn't significant if you are just looking at a gross number. A $60 Armani suit is incredible, $60 for what I get from AT&T programming is one step above lighting it on fire, especially when Netflix is offering some of the best original content out there for $8.44. $60/mo is $15 more than what I pay for cell phone service for the wife and I...it's very significant, for what you get. It's all relative. "Significant" is a totally subjective term; you simply can't say something is or isn't. As is dismissing Netflix by saying it isn't great. I get that I'm saying cable sucks and that's my opinion, but cable isn't $8. I don't have an acquaintance that thinks cable TV is a better value than Netflix.