Why F.I.R.E. isn’t a good idea? Because LIFE happens.

[Matthew McNeil]

I come from healthy DNA stock. My maternal and paternal grandparents lived until their mid-90s. If I embrace F.I.R.E. at my age then I’m probably looking at 40 years until I die.

Reality check bullet points;

1. F.I.R.E. presupposes that life is static.
2. F.I.R.E. is falsely based on calculations when in reality they’re projections. For example, how do you take into account future inflation or the cost of a significant illness?

Working is a value. Productivity is a value. Retire at 35. Then what?

I appreciate that it works for some people who are putting it out there in articles, blogs, YouTube videos, and even writing books. But the fractional number of people who have retired early does not justify a movement where people may be misguided to make enormous sacrifices to achieve a goal only to be faced with a significant problem 20 years later.

Granted, many BP members may balk at this post.  However, I think we can all agree that applying some of the FIRE philosophy resonates with people, but in truth its more about pivoting control back into our hands and retiring early may not be the avenue to pursue that control.

[Mike Dymski]

Most people in the FIRE movement don't retire early.  They pursue FI instead and then do work in their field of choice.

The movement is more about aligning daily actions with values than it is about retirement.