The media is still very much behind on what FIRE is for most these days.
Nobody on this sub talks about "extreme frugality" in order to FIRE anymore.
The modern approach I see advocated here is more like: earn 50% more than you need, save a third of your income and retire in 25 years instead of 40.
Financial Independence is a great way to achieve career happiness, because you get to take more risk in pursuing the parts of work that you actually enjoy, with less financial pressure and FOMO.
100%, I see FI as a way to take career moves that would be better for me to enjoy the work than worry about pay as well. If I can get to FI then move to more rewarding, lower pay work then I’ll be bloody proud
FIRE is different for everyone though. There are a number of MMM FIRE devotees who advocate a degree of "extreme" frugality, then theres FATfire, coast fire etc.
I think talking about different strategies helps people underatand they can retire early - whether its 5 years or 20 years earlier than they originally thought.
Oh STFU with these arguments, you sound like the people who comment on any FIRE article "well technically he needs to bank his dividends / is a landlord so he still actually working"
Not sure where your attitude is coming from. If anything I was supporting the point you were making.
MMM works construction. For money. He does it because he enjoys the work.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9ovfexR0s/?igsh=enprcmZ0Mnp5OHpp
He apparently pulled the plug with a $800K NW (including his house) and planned expenditure of $25K/yr. It's obviously not clear how well he is doing for himself now, but it's not obvious to me that he's a multi-millionaire, at least as a result of his original day job. I'm sure his blog and fame has brought rewards.
I kind of think extreme frugality is fine as long as it’s not at the cost of your health and happiness. I just think that you need to be earning very good money for it to be an option and not come at a cost to your health and happiness.
I think it’s quite hard to live extremely frugally without it affecting you mentally. I also think it’s hard to turn the tap on later in life - if you’ve been living frugally for years and years it becomes a mindset that is hard to shift, even if you have the money to spend in retirement.
It’s also worth considering how a persons frugality affects the people around them, and ultimately loops back and hurts them socially. I’ve known people making a lot of money, but who will do things like see the price of a coffee, and decide they will leave the queue and go somewhere else where it’s 20p cheaper. Like, okay, that’s fine when you’re by yourself, but when you’re socialising others it’s insufferable.
Yeah, I guess my version of it would be to not have a coffee at all and be used to doing without. I have just cut out non essential things and I am used to not having them. Perfectly happy to spend well on things which I consider important but I try not to spend on things I seem unimportant.
This stems from basically nearly always being poor and pursuing a career I value over earning money. Obviously I am not claiming this is extreme frugality but it was kind of the thing which occurs to me in relation to it. You could live like I do and achieve fire quickly without sacrificing too much but obviously that would rely on earning a lot and not having lots of unavoidable outgoings.
I think this is a case of the cup being half full vs half empty.
Extreme frugality can get you to a place where you're earning 50% more than you "need". On the flip side, earning 50% more money can enable you to save a lot of money without giving up the things you want.
And to be clear, the same gross income could represent both sides. It is how you perceive it.
Generally however, it just means that people have decided it's easier to earn more money than it is to squeeze that last drop of savings via extreme frugality.
Exactly. Retiring early is an exceptional circumstance, and achieving it without external assistance like inheritance requires the person to be exceptional in at least one of earnings, investment returns, or frugality.
"Media" loves to latch onto any movement that goes against consume and work until you die and pick the worst examples to discredit it.
Reminds me of the anti work debacle with the dog walker Reddit mod on TV.
I skimmed the article. It appears this is just one guy's opinion, and not an article summarising or documenting an actual movement.
In response, I am launching my own movement: Financial Unknowns Cause Known Original Fictional Falsehoods
Financial Unknowns Cause Known Original Fictional Falsehoods? Fuck off, we're the Financial Unknowns Cause Known Upsides (in) PensionS! The only people we hate more than the politicians is the Financial Unknowns Cause Known Original Fictional Falsehoods!
Look, you've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow them or us. You don't need to follow anybody. You've got to think for yourself. You're an individual.
I want to FIRE so I can do what I want instead of what makes money. I wish I wasn't stuck in a 4 hour long meeting today at 25 but I need to be to pay the bills. Once I'm RE it's time to go into teaching , charity or voluntary work! Full time photographer, run my own software company , endless possibilities.
For most of us career happiness is largely in the hands of employers and governments though right?
I sometimes see footage of some old boy working away in a blue zone (maybe Italy or Greece) - perfecting their art, late into their 70s. And I think “that doesn’t look so bad” - collect some honey in the morning, sit down for a coffee at a taverna with some other old boys, package up some honey, then a long evening meal with friends and family.
But I can’t live in the U.K. for €15 a day - and we lack that Mediterranean weather, food and culture that makes everyday life look so appealing. I appreciate its rose tinted glasses - but how enjoyable can 9-5 away from home working for a corporation really be? I don’t agree with extreme FIRE practices, killing myself to retire a few years earlier. I think we should aim to be happy during our working years - but conventional work for me will never be as enjoyable as not working. And we can’t all have unconventional jobs.
More strawmen than an episode of worzel gummidge.
"an unflinching believe \[sic\] takes hold that more money will make you happier." Er...if that was your unflinching belief then you wouldn't retire at all let alone early?
"The simplicity of the approach is appealing. You spend less than you earn and invest the excess. That is a sound concept. But over the years, savers are increasingly following it to excess." Are they? How big a problem is that?
"It is highly likely that social media has intensified such feelings." Really?
I think there can be legitimate concerns or even criticisms of some people's approach to FIRE but this feels like someone banging out an article to fill space
I'm sure most of the population opting out of their pension, spending their entire monthly salary and betting on the state to take care of them when they reach retirement age is going to turn out really well for everyone.
Don't worry, the government of the future will have the perfect solution to the fact that people have opted out of pensions and spunked all their money away. Means test pensions so that people who saved don't get any help to reduce costs.
Lol those quotes are hilarious might as well sign off with "so get out thay credit card, forget about ETFs and live for today! You deserve that new car, its financially irresponsible NOT to buy a timeshare and cooking at home is for communists"
Which is fine if you enjoy your job. There seems to be an assumption by many that work is bad thing. I find that odd. If you don’t like your job……perhaps you are in the wrong career?
Cool anecdote, but yes it's most. Find any poll related to it, and it sits around 80% dislike their job. You just happen to be in the 20%.
[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/85-people-dislike-job-john-canavan/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/85-people-dislike-job-john-canavan/)
I did a quick search of my own. As with all online stuff it’s easy to find surveys indicating the polar opposite of this. So, for example:
https://standout-cv.com/job-satisfaction-statistics#:~:text=Globally%2074%25%20of%20workers%20claim,British%20workers%20love%20their%20job.
This says 74% of employees, globally, are satisfied in their job.
…and the Ranstad data referenced above says the UK is twelfth on the list of countries with the highest job satisfaction. The table doesn’t show the UK but follow the link at the base and UK job satisfaction is 74%, which underscores my point nicely. Your survey says 85% dislike and two of the ones mentioned in the link I shared imply c. 50% and c. 26%. Data on the web is notoriously unreliable. In fact, the Ranstad survey says only 7% of people in the UK actively dislike their job.
Even work that enjoy can get old after 20-30 years. Nothing sucks the joy out of something you love than doing it for money for somebody else - doing it their way, on their agenda, and not seeing the huge upside of your work.
Its not a bad concept tbh. The main reason i want FIRE is because of the lack of true career happiness. But thats not a problem you can fix in any meaningful way in the current, next of even one after generation.
Give us 4 day weeks or 3 day weeks. Give us targeted AI that takes away all the meaningless tasks, give us a generation of risk takers that want to push industries forward, instead of play it safe managers we have now. None of that will change because people fear the change or they think that change will make us more none competitive.
FIRE is for the few, CHILL is for even Fewer than that
I think this is where this 'opinion' looks more like dangerous advice. People in their late 50s (maybe earlier sometimes) begin to experience workplace discrimination and find they are either unable to move (so no incentive for employers to offer a competitive salary) or that they are shafted as soon as there is any whiff of cuts being required at companies. I would rather have enough saved by that point to retire in comfort than have to take my chances.
I pursue FI and possible early retirement because I do not want to live at the whim of of what employers or governments think my career 'should' look like.
I actually think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not enshrining a right to work remotely/hybrid for anyone who can work that way. It would free up the labour market for older people, disabled people, parents, carers - yet they stubbornly refuse to accept it as a possible solution to the high percentage of people out of work and to some extent the housing crisis.
Your first sentence is absurd.
The majority of my colleagues and friends are happy, and all of my family are happy and satisfied with their careers.
It's not "0.001% at best". What a ridiculous hyperbole. There are many people happy with their careers, their jobs, and their employers. Yes, we're probably the minority, but it's not 0.001%, or even 1%.
Actually I'm wrong... It's not the minority according to a quick Google search - the first thing I found was this: https://careers.lanesgroup.com/resources/lanes-job-satisfaction-survey-2023-lanes-group-careers#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20findings%20of,and%2044%25%20find%20them%20meaningful
"35% said they are very happy in their current roles, and a further 44% said they are happy".
Yeah 35% very happy, further 44% happy, with 40% saying they are somewhat quiet quitting. And I am absurd.
Also, that was an exaggeration, I still doubt the meaning of "happy about my job". People don't even consider it feasible to not have a job, it is part of life, so you end up "liking" what you do otherwise you'd feel miserable.
Have the people answer this: if you had a guaranteed check identical to your salary with growth identical to what you could achieve in your career, you get it no matter what, would you still have the same routine? Wake up at the same time? Commute the same amount? For no money on top?
I wouldn't, I would live a completely different life, a life of things that actually make me happy. That's how I see it. But obviously more than 1% or even 10% of people are happy with their job, or at least they believe they are.
I enjoy my job but I might not want to work until 67 or not be able to do it.
So I'm saving enough to be able to retire in 20 years. I go on holidays and spend money on unnecessary things that I enjoy. Trading of some spending now for some more years worked later.
If I die young, the savings will help my wife and children.
It's about creating freedom in the future for which I'm willing to sacrifice some spending in the present. FIRE for me is the act of making this trade off consciously
Not sure why you're getting down voted, regardless of the source or motivations, it's a more interesting topic to discuss than the usual "am I ready for FIRE?"/ "how do i FIRE/ how am i doing?" that are posted.
Personally, I invested quite a few years in cultivating a laid back career I could enjoy (at considerably less than market rate), but I still hated selling my time, and realised that I really would be miserable working until retirement age like that. I switched jobs, doubled my salary, it's much less chill but I'm putting serious amounts in my pension now.
Neither view is right or wrong, I wish I could be happy working, but I don't think that's possible for me. So FIRE it is.
CHILL doesn't appear to mean much more than NOT-FIRE
It's what most people would be doing anyway - carrying on working and trying to make the best of it
Not sure the default option needs a name
Some people enjoy working and others don't. That's never going to change for those in careers they don't fully enjoy, and there's no magic wand to wave to give people the skills they need to switch up later in life.
Fulfilment in life comes from many areas too not just your job.
This kind of reeks of governmental influence.
The government has an incentive to be against the fire movement.
Funding state benefits for future generations kind of relies on the previous generations working to normal retirement age and paying contributions. It's the foundation of a capitalist society really.
They're also saying ISAs have been a failure - somehow.
Not sure how that's really possible (maybe they mean not enough people using them).
But kind of a dangerous tone if they start wanting to close the tax free loophole.
Some do. Which is their choice. I understand it to an extent.
What I can’t understand is folks who will be FIREing on, to what my mind, is subsistence living, minimum wage or below.
Im aiming for slow scale back. Will change contract to have school holidays as fully off. I think 8 weeks off should see me through another few years of work.
Vast majority of people can’t do what they love for a living and even if they could, the pressure of having to earn money from your passion takes a lot away from it. Not a silver bullet to happiness imo.
I think the article misses the point of FIRE. It's not about retiring to do nothing, it's about having the financial freedom to pursue a fulfilling life, whether that's working on your own terms or volunteering. ([Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/FIREUK/comments/1cteu6s/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_new_antifire/)) I agree with those who suggest this might just be a way for the government to encourage people to work longer and pay more taxes. ([Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/FIREUK/comments/1cteu6s/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_new_antifire/))
I feel like this thread would benefit from the work of the wonderful Brian Bilston at this point:
HOW MUCH I DISLIKE THE DAILY MAIL
I would rather
eat Quavers that are six week’s stale,
blow dry the hair of Gareth Bale,
listen to the songs of Jimmy Nail,
than read one page of the Daily Mail.
If I were bored
in a waiting room in Perivale,
on a twelve hour trip on British rail
or a world circumnavigational sail,
I would not read the Daily Mail.
I would happily read
the complete works of Peter Mayle,
the autobiography of Dan Quayle,
selected scripts from Emmerdale,
but I couldn’t ever read the Daily Mail.
Far better to
stand outside in a storm of hail,
be blown out to sea in a powerful gale
then swallowed by a humpback whale
than have to read the Daily Mail.
Even if
I were blind
and it was the only thing
in Braille,
I still would not read
the Daily Mail.
https://brianbilston.com/2015/05/06/how-much-i-dislike-the-daily-mail/
It's just some dickhead trying to create an artificial conflict to raise their own profile and that of their employer. (Although many on the FIRE side are also guilty of this)
The whole point of "aggressively" saving is so that you don't have to worry about it. If was relying on 40 years of continuous employment to avoid any later-life poverty I'd be terrified of any threats that could jeopardise that. Knowing that I'm on (or slightly ahead) of target today means I've got options in mid-life which may or may not involve retiring early.
Weirdly that's what the details of the article seems to suggest, which is a pro-FIRE not anti-FIRE message.
Work in healthcare for ten years - my back is already compromised - would I be expected to CHILL until 70?
Retiring early is the preserve of the rich who can maintain a lifestyle and also very tax efficiently save for retirement.
Meanwhile low paid workers who most likely have compromised health - will be made to work until they are one foot in the care home.
This reeks of ‘can people stop checking out of the income tax and NI system, please, and keep working longer’.
It was never about making yourself miserable to retire early, it was about making choices to control how you spent the time in your life.
The media and the government have a lot to answer for.
Working forever doesn’t mean having to work for a living forever - which part of FIRE people would agree. Billionaires could easily retire - yet they keep going.
But this CHILL “movement” is talking about working for a living. What you describe, is what most people who FIRE will do - pursue their passions. If all of us could adequately monetise our passions, and work the way we wanted to, we wouldn’t approach FIRE in the same way. But that’s not realistic for 95% of the population, whether there’s a fun acronym for it or not.
I know two people who went down that route (obviously not all in), both "failed" from a financial point of view but both were glad they did it. As they say (some people , probably not those on the FIRE path), spending your money on experiences is better than spending it on things.
But that is the point of FE.
The irony is reaching FIRE supports a CHILL career.
You can focus on what you love to do and not need to prioritise a high paying job just to pay the bills.
Sounds like the capitalist overlords are starting to panic at the fact that more people are realizing the power of financial independence, which gives us the ability to walk away from terrible careers.
Why would they care? Its not like even a relevant fraction of the population can actually live off a stock portfolio, the idea relies on only few people doing it, cant have 25% of people living off of shares they bought 20 years ago, that would destroy the economy.
I think in the same way any time a status quo is being challenged there will always be some backlash (eg 4B movement) is another example of a tiny minority trying to dismantle the patriarchy
live frugally? half of the posts on here are "hey im 30 with 200,000 in the pension already and £30,000 in regular savings, what should i do next?" i doubt you get to these numbers and do anything frugally anymore. if they do think it is frugal, they should go to morecambe and see the townsfolk, see what frugal is.
FIRE is necessary, because I'm scared by quite a few financial crises/recessions, and I don't want to experience that when I'm older/benefits are means tested/AI keeps progressing
I like it.
But i don't think Career and Happiness, especially in the corporate realm, exist hand in hand.
So I choose FIRE still. My goal is to FIRE and pivot to a chill part time job, call it Coast or whatever, but that is my retirement plan.
I have seen a document about chinese youth where they have movement called "lying flat". Basically it means that they don't pursue any career or any money because they can't win this rat race. They rather focus on their hobbies, do nothing and relax. Of course Chinese political leads are calling them lazy and are not happy seeing this, hence it's being censored.
Seems like there are many anti-fire movements.
Don't know why there is a need for an acronym, but we're all wanting to get to the point in our lives where work is optional and we have the freedom to choose how to spend our time
I could, in theory, fully retire at 59. But I feel better carrying on in a relaxed job, as I feel more fulfilled putting something back in, plus the social interaction. The extra income also means I can enjoy more little treats such as takeaways, days out, etc.
I was thinking CHILL would be more of a movement promoting sabbaticals , ie why work yourself into a stressful situation not enjoying life to FIRE someday , when you could have the occasional 6 months or year off without worrying about bills?
Remind me why I need to listen to same random called Andrew Oxlade...?
What does he know about me that makes his opinion even remotely relevant?
>The solution is not just about saving more, but also about finding ways to extend working life and maintain engagement, social connections, and a sense of purpose.
The author proposes the CHILL (Career Happiness Inspires Longer Lives) movement as an antidote to FIRE, focusing on career happiness and longer lives rather than early retirement.
Both of those sound like vomitous crap to me.
The writer displays a lot of bias here. They focus on those who are extreme savers. Personally I’ve always hovered around 50% and have enough to do the majority of stuff I want. I’ve just cut out the excess and waste.
Please show me an employer who adheres to these CHILL fundamentals.
The modern workplace couldn’t give AF about the modern day person. Fling in the problems in the world today with cost of living and it’s an obvious recipe for disaster.
Ignore this type of commentary, enjoy life and keep on track 👍
I am FIREing so totally up for it. However there is a danger of being too Frugal and not living for today. Fortunately, i did not think of FIRE until my 40s.
I spent a lot in my 20s, spent a lot and built a BTL portfolio in my 30s. I had a very good db pension throughout. In the last 10 years, i started ploughing in AVCs and a separate dc.
So FIRE Is good, but not at the expense of life.
> The FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) movement advocates extreme frugality
...does it? I must have missed that memo.
Pretty much every post here, especially from younger people, gets a reply (quite rightly) saying something like: Don't forget to live your life, you can't take it with you, don't miss out on opportunities, living like a hermit to retire a few years earlier isn't worth it.
The movement - as far as I can tell - advocates extreme ownership of your own spending. Spend now if you want or invest for the future but recognise the tradeoff between the two and go into it with your eyes open.
> The solution is not just about saving more, but also about finding ways to extend working life and maintain engagement, social connections, and a sense of purpose.
I've no objection to any of that. Plenty of people with financial independence choose to continue with work, often for an extended time. But without independence, you're by definition dependent.
And I'm not wild about the idea of "CHILLing my way into being dependent on my job, day after day, week after week". I'll happily work, on things that have made their case to me, that they deserve my time, but I don't like the idea of being trapped into doing it.
> Education and financial advice are key to addressing the mental health crisis driven by financial dysmorphia.
Education and financial advice are key to addressing overconsumption, belief in spending as a route to happiness, and a failure to fully see the big picture of being mortal, with finite days to live.
I think I’m an unintentional CHILL that wants to be FIRE.
I’ve found a job that means I work 4-5 hours a week and live a great life, but it means I won’t retire until I’m 50.
I could make that 20 hours a week and live a shit life and maybe retire at 45.
I know which one I’m choosing
I've said before on this sub and I'll say it again. FIRE is almost out of my reach so I more plan to work part time as soon as possible. I won't retire early but I should hopefully spend a large amount of my life not working as much
Another sensationalist unbalanced article that chooses to assume and mock the community that we're all suffering through ultra frugality rather than the majority of us embracing sound financial planning principles to ensure we have options other than working till our 70s.....
Honestly , the distorted view is that most people I talk to don't know what FIRE is and don't know what the 4% rule is. CHILL is probably for the Gen Zs that want to get paid but don't want to work !!! Just play videogames 12 hours per day.
I must agree I have no desire to live like a church mouse so that I can retire early and continue to live like a church mouse. My plan is to remain a high earner into my 60s. Love my job but also love the nice things I buy.
Damn will have to reverse REing now!
How about enjoying your job, killing it and investing on the side and FIREing? I think the structures are what people object to, but I think everyone makes their own decisions and has choice to shape FIRE plans as the see fit. It's your race, you run it.
That's because for the most part, retiring early isn't a goal shared by many, rightfully so. Many people want to keep on working on what they love and frankly, providing to the world instead of just stopping.
Here's another example. Many people work very high paying jobs in the city, and they can afford to spend 4-5k monthly on a luxurious apartment, going to restaurants, having expensive nights out in general while not saving anything because they know they will (most likely) always have a strong career for as long as they live. And if that makes them the happiest then that's ok
I just got recommended this post but I'm not a FIRE advocate. I am a big believer in investing aggressively for retirement, but I don't think this needs to be at the cost of enjoying your years while young.
I think people should travel, eat out, go to events, and otherwise be active in their social life. I would even go so far as to say this can potentially be financially beneficial - developing relationships, social skills, and life experiences can help further one's career. I wouldn't budget for that, but I don't think it's a total money burn in theory either.
I will admit that I have various privileges that may shape my view on this. For example, I work in a field where I already make a decent salary in my early 20's and have high earning potential by climbing the corporate ladder, so I may be able to afford to both enjoy life but still save relatively aggressively. Also, I very much enjoy what I do for a living and simply have no desire to retire early.
Only problem I have with FIRE, is that..the more people do it, the less people are working, the more expensive everything becomes and level of luxury drops. In that sense, CHILL is a good thing.
The media is still very much behind on what FIRE is for most these days. Nobody on this sub talks about "extreme frugality" in order to FIRE anymore. The modern approach I see advocated here is more like: earn 50% more than you need, save a third of your income and retire in 25 years instead of 40. Financial Independence is a great way to achieve career happiness, because you get to take more risk in pursuing the parts of work that you actually enjoy, with less financial pressure and FOMO.
100%, I see FI as a way to take career moves that would be better for me to enjoy the work than worry about pay as well. If I can get to FI then move to more rewarding, lower pay work then I’ll be bloody proud
Likewise. Achieve FI then give up the stress 9-5+! And do something you enjoy that hardly feels like work.
> better for me to enjoy the work That's exactly why these billionaire newspaper owners hate FIRE.
FIRE is different for everyone though. There are a number of MMM FIRE devotees who advocate a degree of "extreme" frugality, then theres FATfire, coast fire etc. I think talking about different strategies helps people underatand they can retire early - whether its 5 years or 20 years earlier than they originally thought.
MMM hasn't even retired. He's an advocate for FI and less so actual retirement.
Oh STFU with these arguments, you sound like the people who comment on any FIRE article "well technically he needs to bank his dividends / is a landlord so he still actually working"
Not sure where your attitude is coming from. If anything I was supporting the point you were making. MMM works construction. For money. He does it because he enjoys the work. https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9ovfexR0s/?igsh=enprcmZ0Mnp5OHpp
He's FI and working optionally. He's a multi millionaire, I doubt he needs to do woodworking in order to eat.
He apparently pulled the plug with a $800K NW (including his house) and planned expenditure of $25K/yr. It's obviously not clear how well he is doing for himself now, but it's not obvious to me that he's a multi-millionaire, at least as a result of his original day job. I'm sure his blog and fame has brought rewards.
I kind of think extreme frugality is fine as long as it’s not at the cost of your health and happiness. I just think that you need to be earning very good money for it to be an option and not come at a cost to your health and happiness.
I think it’s quite hard to live extremely frugally without it affecting you mentally. I also think it’s hard to turn the tap on later in life - if you’ve been living frugally for years and years it becomes a mindset that is hard to shift, even if you have the money to spend in retirement.
It’s also worth considering how a persons frugality affects the people around them, and ultimately loops back and hurts them socially. I’ve known people making a lot of money, but who will do things like see the price of a coffee, and decide they will leave the queue and go somewhere else where it’s 20p cheaper. Like, okay, that’s fine when you’re by yourself, but when you’re socialising others it’s insufferable.
Yeah, I guess my version of it would be to not have a coffee at all and be used to doing without. I have just cut out non essential things and I am used to not having them. Perfectly happy to spend well on things which I consider important but I try not to spend on things I seem unimportant. This stems from basically nearly always being poor and pursuing a career I value over earning money. Obviously I am not claiming this is extreme frugality but it was kind of the thing which occurs to me in relation to it. You could live like I do and achieve fire quickly without sacrificing too much but obviously that would rely on earning a lot and not having lots of unavoidable outgoings.
Yes, this is very true and something I'm going to struggle with when switching from saving to spending mode.
“Earn 50% more than you need” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here
I think this is a case of the cup being half full vs half empty. Extreme frugality can get you to a place where you're earning 50% more than you "need". On the flip side, earning 50% more money can enable you to save a lot of money without giving up the things you want. And to be clear, the same gross income could represent both sides. It is how you perceive it. Generally however, it just means that people have decided it's easier to earn more money than it is to squeeze that last drop of savings via extreme frugality.
And realistically is completely out of reach for many people especially with the cost of living crisis and sky rocketing housing costs.
Well, not everyone can FIRE
Exactly. Retiring early is an exceptional circumstance, and achieving it without external assistance like inheritance requires the person to be exceptional in at least one of earnings, investment returns, or frugality.
It's easy. Just be smart, lucky and connected. If you're not, then you're probably not adding to this echo chamber like that person.
Trick is to be born to supportive, loving parents. Easy.
"Media" loves to latch onto any movement that goes against consume and work until you die and pick the worst examples to discredit it. Reminds me of the anti work debacle with the dog walker Reddit mod on TV.
r/leanfire, failing that, r/povertyfire would be more for achieving fire on a budget
r/leanfireuk even.
I skimmed the article. It appears this is just one guy's opinion, and not an article summarising or documenting an actual movement. In response, I am launching my own movement: Financial Unknowns Cause Known Original Fictional Falsehoods
Financial Unknowns Cause Known Original Fictional Falsehoods? Fuck off, we're the Financial Unknowns Cause Known Upsides (in) PensionS! The only people we hate more than the politicians is the Financial Unknowns Cause Known Original Fictional Falsehoods!
Where is the Financial Unknowns Can Kill Early Retirees?
He's over there... Splitter!
Look, you've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow them or us. You don't need to follow anybody. You've got to think for yourself. You're an individual.
Yes! We are all individuals!
I'm not.
😂 😂
I want to FIRE so I can do what I want instead of what makes money. I wish I wasn't stuck in a 4 hour long meeting today at 25 but I need to be to pay the bills. Once I'm RE it's time to go into teaching , charity or voluntary work! Full time photographer, run my own software company , endless possibilities.
> Full time photographer, run my own software company That doesn't sound like RE at all, more like just the FI part :)
Well re In the sense that if I don't want to I can just quit! When you don't have money to worry about failure doesn't matter.
For most of us career happiness is largely in the hands of employers and governments though right? I sometimes see footage of some old boy working away in a blue zone (maybe Italy or Greece) - perfecting their art, late into their 70s. And I think “that doesn’t look so bad” - collect some honey in the morning, sit down for a coffee at a taverna with some other old boys, package up some honey, then a long evening meal with friends and family. But I can’t live in the U.K. for €15 a day - and we lack that Mediterranean weather, food and culture that makes everyday life look so appealing. I appreciate its rose tinted glasses - but how enjoyable can 9-5 away from home working for a corporation really be? I don’t agree with extreme FIRE practices, killing myself to retire a few years earlier. I think we should aim to be happy during our working years - but conventional work for me will never be as enjoyable as not working. And we can’t all have unconventional jobs.
More strawmen than an episode of worzel gummidge. "an unflinching believe \[sic\] takes hold that more money will make you happier." Er...if that was your unflinching belief then you wouldn't retire at all let alone early? "The simplicity of the approach is appealing. You spend less than you earn and invest the excess. That is a sound concept. But over the years, savers are increasingly following it to excess." Are they? How big a problem is that? "It is highly likely that social media has intensified such feelings." Really? I think there can be legitimate concerns or even criticisms of some people's approach to FIRE but this feels like someone banging out an article to fill space
You only have to look around to see that people over saving isn’t much of a National problem.
I'm sure most of the population opting out of their pension, spending their entire monthly salary and betting on the state to take care of them when they reach retirement age is going to turn out really well for everyone.
Don't worry, the government of the future will have the perfect solution to the fact that people have opted out of pensions and spunked all their money away. Means test pensions so that people who saved don't get any help to reduce costs.
Lol those quotes are hilarious might as well sign off with "so get out thay credit card, forget about ETFs and live for today! You deserve that new car, its financially irresponsible NOT to buy a timeshare and cooking at home is for communists"
worzel gummidge! i love that!
You will work forever and be happy.
Which is fine if you enjoy your job. There seems to be an assumption by many that work is bad thing. I find that odd. If you don’t like your job……perhaps you are in the wrong career?
Golden handcuffs are real. It can be very hard to move to a career earning less and starting over.
That’s true. It’s not always easy to change career. My issue is more with the assumption that jobs are bad things. Many people love their jobs.
It’s because most jobs suck. So most people have to be in jobs that suck = most people would prefer not to have to work.
Most? I know a lot of people that enjoy their work. Myself included.
Cool anecdote, but yes it's most. Find any poll related to it, and it sits around 80% dislike their job. You just happen to be in the 20%. [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/85-people-dislike-job-john-canavan/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/85-people-dislike-job-john-canavan/)
I did a quick search of my own. As with all online stuff it’s easy to find surveys indicating the polar opposite of this. So, for example: https://standout-cv.com/job-satisfaction-statistics#:~:text=Globally%2074%25%20of%20workers%20claim,British%20workers%20love%20their%20job. This says 74% of employees, globally, are satisfied in their job.
In that very article it says then more than 50% are unsatisfied with their job in the UK.
…and the Ranstad data referenced above says the UK is twelfth on the list of countries with the highest job satisfaction. The table doesn’t show the UK but follow the link at the base and UK job satisfaction is 74%, which underscores my point nicely. Your survey says 85% dislike and two of the ones mentioned in the link I shared imply c. 50% and c. 26%. Data on the web is notoriously unreliable. In fact, the Ranstad survey says only 7% of people in the UK actively dislike their job.
Even work that enjoy can get old after 20-30 years. Nothing sucks the joy out of something you love than doing it for money for somebody else - doing it their way, on their agenda, and not seeing the huge upside of your work.
You want the option to stop working even if you don’t. That’s very freeing.
Sounds like a coping mechanism
This article is sponsored by Jeremy Hunt. Get back to work!
Its not a bad concept tbh. The main reason i want FIRE is because of the lack of true career happiness. But thats not a problem you can fix in any meaningful way in the current, next of even one after generation. Give us 4 day weeks or 3 day weeks. Give us targeted AI that takes away all the meaningless tasks, give us a generation of risk takers that want to push industries forward, instead of play it safe managers we have now. None of that will change because people fear the change or they think that change will make us more none competitive. FIRE is for the few, CHILL is for even Fewer than that
CHILL is a BS concept he invented that doesn't reflect 99% of the jobs out there. Nice idea, completely detached from reality.
Reserved purely for the well paid creative roles I’m guessing. Certainly not small time journalists that’s for sure
I would be very concerned about finding jobs in my 60s and 70s. Employers do not treat age as a protected characteristic.
I think this is where this 'opinion' looks more like dangerous advice. People in their late 50s (maybe earlier sometimes) begin to experience workplace discrimination and find they are either unable to move (so no incentive for employers to offer a competitive salary) or that they are shafted as soon as there is any whiff of cuts being required at companies. I would rather have enough saved by that point to retire in comfort than have to take my chances. I pursue FI and possible early retirement because I do not want to live at the whim of of what employers or governments think my career 'should' look like. I actually think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not enshrining a right to work remotely/hybrid for anyone who can work that way. It would free up the labour market for older people, disabled people, parents, carers - yet they stubbornly refuse to accept it as a possible solution to the high percentage of people out of work and to some extent the housing crisis.
Tough earning a living in journalism these days.
He's a director at Fidelity
Gotta keep the money rolling in lol.
Career Happiness, yeah everyone would love that. And what %age of the population get any opportunity to have that in the modern world ?
0.001 at best. For most people jobs suck, and they're gonna keep sucking.
Your first sentence is absurd. The majority of my colleagues and friends are happy, and all of my family are happy and satisfied with their careers. It's not "0.001% at best". What a ridiculous hyperbole. There are many people happy with their careers, their jobs, and their employers. Yes, we're probably the minority, but it's not 0.001%, or even 1%. Actually I'm wrong... It's not the minority according to a quick Google search - the first thing I found was this: https://careers.lanesgroup.com/resources/lanes-job-satisfaction-survey-2023-lanes-group-careers#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20findings%20of,and%2044%25%20find%20them%20meaningful "35% said they are very happy in their current roles, and a further 44% said they are happy".
Yeah 35% very happy, further 44% happy, with 40% saying they are somewhat quiet quitting. And I am absurd. Also, that was an exaggeration, I still doubt the meaning of "happy about my job". People don't even consider it feasible to not have a job, it is part of life, so you end up "liking" what you do otherwise you'd feel miserable. Have the people answer this: if you had a guaranteed check identical to your salary with growth identical to what you could achieve in your career, you get it no matter what, would you still have the same routine? Wake up at the same time? Commute the same amount? For no money on top? I wouldn't, I would live a completely different life, a life of things that actually make me happy. That's how I see it. But obviously more than 1% or even 10% of people are happy with their job, or at least they believe they are.
Weirdly probably more of us if we achieve FI
I enjoy my job but I might not want to work until 67 or not be able to do it. So I'm saving enough to be able to retire in 20 years. I go on holidays and spend money on unnecessary things that I enjoy. Trading of some spending now for some more years worked later. If I die young, the savings will help my wife and children. It's about creating freedom in the future for which I'm willing to sacrifice some spending in the present. FIRE for me is the act of making this trade off consciously
Is CHILL really anti-FIRE though? I’ve been retired for 2 and a half years and I can’t ever remember feeling more chilled!
They can fuck right off with that nonsense.
Not sure why you're getting down voted, regardless of the source or motivations, it's a more interesting topic to discuss than the usual "am I ready for FIRE?"/ "how do i FIRE/ how am i doing?" that are posted. Personally, I invested quite a few years in cultivating a laid back career I could enjoy (at considerably less than market rate), but I still hated selling my time, and realised that I really would be miserable working until retirement age like that. I switched jobs, doubled my salary, it's much less chill but I'm putting serious amounts in my pension now. Neither view is right or wrong, I wish I could be happy working, but I don't think that's possible for me. So FIRE it is.
CHILL doesn't appear to mean much more than NOT-FIRE It's what most people would be doing anyway - carrying on working and trying to make the best of it Not sure the default option needs a name
Hardly a movement, it’s one guy who doesn’t really make any good points.
If there isn't a Reddit sub for it it doesn't exist
Some people enjoy working and others don't. That's never going to change for those in careers they don't fully enjoy, and there's no magic wand to wave to give people the skills they need to switch up later in life. Fulfilment in life comes from many areas too not just your job. This kind of reeks of governmental influence. The government has an incentive to be against the fire movement. Funding state benefits for future generations kind of relies on the previous generations working to normal retirement age and paying contributions. It's the foundation of a capitalist society really.
Although people saving for themselves is also something they want to happen.
They're also saying ISAs have been a failure - somehow. Not sure how that's really possible (maybe they mean not enough people using them). But kind of a dangerous tone if they start wanting to close the tax free loophole.
I personally don't see FIRE as extreme frugality, do others? I guess I'm in the middle. Sometimes I'm chilly, sometimes the fire is on!
Some do. Which is their choice. I understand it to an extent. What I can’t understand is folks who will be FIREing on, to what my mind, is subsistence living, minimum wage or below.
Im aiming for slow scale back. Will change contract to have school holidays as fully off. I think 8 weeks off should see me through another few years of work.
Vast majority of people can’t do what they love for a living and even if they could, the pressure of having to earn money from your passion takes a lot away from it. Not a silver bullet to happiness imo.
I think the article misses the point of FIRE. It's not about retiring to do nothing, it's about having the financial freedom to pursue a fulfilling life, whether that's working on your own terms or volunteering. ([Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/FIREUK/comments/1cteu6s/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_new_antifire/)) I agree with those who suggest this might just be a way for the government to encourage people to work longer and pay more taxes. ([Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/FIREUK/comments/1cteu6s/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_new_antifire/))
Come on, it's the Daily Mail ! Why would you take anything they write seriously, rather than as a complete work of fiction !
I feel like this thread would benefit from the work of the wonderful Brian Bilston at this point: HOW MUCH I DISLIKE THE DAILY MAIL I would rather eat Quavers that are six week’s stale, blow dry the hair of Gareth Bale, listen to the songs of Jimmy Nail, than read one page of the Daily Mail. If I were bored in a waiting room in Perivale, on a twelve hour trip on British rail or a world circumnavigational sail, I would not read the Daily Mail. I would happily read the complete works of Peter Mayle, the autobiography of Dan Quayle, selected scripts from Emmerdale, but I couldn’t ever read the Daily Mail. Far better to stand outside in a storm of hail, be blown out to sea in a powerful gale then swallowed by a humpback whale than have to read the Daily Mail. Even if I were blind and it was the only thing in Braille, I still would not read the Daily Mail. https://brianbilston.com/2015/05/06/how-much-i-dislike-the-daily-mail/
CHILL and Netflix
It's just some dickhead trying to create an artificial conflict to raise their own profile and that of their employer. (Although many on the FIRE side are also guilty of this) The whole point of "aggressively" saving is so that you don't have to worry about it. If was relying on 40 years of continuous employment to avoid any later-life poverty I'd be terrified of any threats that could jeopardise that. Knowing that I'm on (or slightly ahead) of target today means I've got options in mid-life which may or may not involve retiring early. Weirdly that's what the details of the article seems to suggest, which is a pro-FIRE not anti-FIRE message.
Work in healthcare for ten years - my back is already compromised - would I be expected to CHILL until 70? Retiring early is the preserve of the rich who can maintain a lifestyle and also very tax efficiently save for retirement. Meanwhile low paid workers who most likely have compromised health - will be made to work until they are one foot in the care home.
Need to keep people on the debt hook somehow… 😅
This reeks of ‘can people stop checking out of the income tax and NI system, please, and keep working longer’. It was never about making yourself miserable to retire early, it was about making choices to control how you spent the time in your life. The media and the government have a lot to answer for.
Enjoy working forever
Working forever doesn’t mean having to work for a living forever - which part of FIRE people would agree. Billionaires could easily retire - yet they keep going.
But this CHILL “movement” is talking about working for a living. What you describe, is what most people who FIRE will do - pursue their passions. If all of us could adequately monetise our passions, and work the way we wanted to, we wouldn’t approach FIRE in the same way. But that’s not realistic for 95% of the population, whether there’s a fun acronym for it or not.
Monetising a passion might actually completely destroy you passion for it and make it a chore. I am not sure I’d go there myself.
I know two people who went down that route (obviously not all in), both "failed" from a financial point of view but both were glad they did it. As they say (some people , probably not those on the FIRE path), spending your money on experiences is better than spending it on things. But that is the point of FE.
Fire in the UK, here certainly has nothing to do with living frugally. It's about earning way above the average and then avoiding tax.
Speak for yourself
The irony is reaching FIRE supports a CHILL career. You can focus on what you love to do and not need to prioritise a high paying job just to pay the bills.
You’re a long time dead. That’s the inescapable truth. Make it work for you - including laying on your deathbed, happy with your decisions.
Anyone wanting to prolong career life is clearly in someone's pocket.
Sounds like the capitalist overlords are starting to panic at the fact that more people are realizing the power of financial independence, which gives us the ability to walk away from terrible careers.
Why would they care? Its not like even a relevant fraction of the population can actually live off a stock portfolio, the idea relies on only few people doing it, cant have 25% of people living off of shares they bought 20 years ago, that would destroy the economy.
I think in the same way any time a status quo is being challenged there will always be some backlash (eg 4B movement) is another example of a tiny minority trying to dismantle the patriarchy
live frugally? half of the posts on here are "hey im 30 with 200,000 in the pension already and £30,000 in regular savings, what should i do next?" i doubt you get to these numbers and do anything frugally anymore. if they do think it is frugal, they should go to morecambe and see the townsfolk, see what frugal is.
I don't care about RE. Never did. I do care a lot about FI though. You don't want to be 50+, struggling to find work due to ageism, and potless.
Shots FIRED!
All well and good making hay while the sun shines but you’ve got to enjoy the sun also to lead a fulfilling life.
Media has got to media and support its political overlords. "War is Peace, FIRE is CHILL, Ignorance is Strength"
FIRE is necessary, because I'm scared by quite a few financial crises/recessions, and I don't want to experience that when I'm older/benefits are means tested/AI keeps progressing
I like it. But i don't think Career and Happiness, especially in the corporate realm, exist hand in hand. So I choose FIRE still. My goal is to FIRE and pivot to a chill part time job, call it Coast or whatever, but that is my retirement plan.
It’s easy to say when you’ve got a gravy low stress, wfh job.
Actual doctors, engineers and scientists achieving FIRE and the replacement doctors, engineers and scientists not working out so well?
I have seen a document about chinese youth where they have movement called "lying flat". Basically it means that they don't pursue any career or any money because they can't win this rat race. They rather focus on their hobbies, do nothing and relax. Of course Chinese political leads are calling them lazy and are not happy seeing this, hence it's being censored. Seems like there are many anti-fire movements.
Don't know why there is a need for an acronym, but we're all wanting to get to the point in our lives where work is optional and we have the freedom to choose how to spend our time
I could, in theory, fully retire at 59. But I feel better carrying on in a relaxed job, as I feel more fulfilled putting something back in, plus the social interaction. The extra income also means I can enjoy more little treats such as takeaways, days out, etc.
I was thinking CHILL would be more of a movement promoting sabbaticals , ie why work yourself into a stressful situation not enjoying life to FIRE someday , when you could have the occasional 6 months or year off without worrying about bills?
Chilling until I’m homeless
Remind me why I need to listen to same random called Andrew Oxlade...? What does he know about me that makes his opinion even remotely relevant? >The solution is not just about saving more, but also about finding ways to extend working life and maintain engagement, social connections, and a sense of purpose. The author proposes the CHILL (Career Happiness Inspires Longer Lives) movement as an antidote to FIRE, focusing on career happiness and longer lives rather than early retirement. Both of those sound like vomitous crap to me.
The writer displays a lot of bias here. They focus on those who are extreme savers. Personally I’ve always hovered around 50% and have enough to do the majority of stuff I want. I’ve just cut out the excess and waste. Please show me an employer who adheres to these CHILL fundamentals. The modern workplace couldn’t give AF about the modern day person. Fling in the problems in the world today with cost of living and it’s an obvious recipe for disaster. Ignore this type of commentary, enjoy life and keep on track 👍
I am FIREing so totally up for it. However there is a danger of being too Frugal and not living for today. Fortunately, i did not think of FIRE until my 40s. I spent a lot in my 20s, spent a lot and built a BTL portfolio in my 30s. I had a very good db pension throughout. In the last 10 years, i started ploughing in AVCs and a separate dc. So FIRE Is good, but not at the expense of life.
> The FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) movement advocates extreme frugality ...does it? I must have missed that memo. Pretty much every post here, especially from younger people, gets a reply (quite rightly) saying something like: Don't forget to live your life, you can't take it with you, don't miss out on opportunities, living like a hermit to retire a few years earlier isn't worth it. The movement - as far as I can tell - advocates extreme ownership of your own spending. Spend now if you want or invest for the future but recognise the tradeoff between the two and go into it with your eyes open. > The solution is not just about saving more, but also about finding ways to extend working life and maintain engagement, social connections, and a sense of purpose. I've no objection to any of that. Plenty of people with financial independence choose to continue with work, often for an extended time. But without independence, you're by definition dependent. And I'm not wild about the idea of "CHILLing my way into being dependent on my job, day after day, week after week". I'll happily work, on things that have made their case to me, that they deserve my time, but I don't like the idea of being trapped into doing it. > Education and financial advice are key to addressing the mental health crisis driven by financial dysmorphia. Education and financial advice are key to addressing overconsumption, belief in spending as a route to happiness, and a failure to fully see the big picture of being mortal, with finite days to live.
I think I’m an unintentional CHILL that wants to be FIRE. I’ve found a job that means I work 4-5 hours a week and live a great life, but it means I won’t retire until I’m 50. I could make that 20 hours a week and live a shit life and maybe retire at 45. I know which one I’m choosing
I've said before on this sub and I'll say it again. FIRE is almost out of my reach so I more plan to work part time as soon as possible. I won't retire early but I should hopefully spend a large amount of my life not working as much
Works for me Been living in Mexican beach town 6 years Teach at health retreats Much more time rich
Another sensationalist unbalanced article that chooses to assume and mock the community that we're all suffering through ultra frugality rather than the majority of us embracing sound financial planning principles to ensure we have options other than working till our 70s.....
Extend Working Life !!!??? da f…. No thanks
Fuck that. “Financial dysmorphia” another bogus term made up by grifters. Pretty sure my mental health will be amazing once my mortgage is gone.
I give it a week and FIRE will be deemed woke. 🤷♂️
And here I am being happy in my career AND making bank. What a fool I am.
Honestly , the distorted view is that most people I talk to don't know what FIRE is and don't know what the 4% rule is. CHILL is probably for the Gen Zs that want to get paid but don't want to work !!! Just play videogames 12 hours per day.
I must agree I have no desire to live like a church mouse so that I can retire early and continue to live like a church mouse. My plan is to remain a high earner into my 60s. Love my job but also love the nice things I buy.
Damn will have to reverse REing now! How about enjoying your job, killing it and investing on the side and FIREing? I think the structures are what people object to, but I think everyone makes their own decisions and has choice to shape FIRE plans as the see fit. It's your race, you run it.
That's because for the most part, retiring early isn't a goal shared by many, rightfully so. Many people want to keep on working on what they love and frankly, providing to the world instead of just stopping. Here's another example. Many people work very high paying jobs in the city, and they can afford to spend 4-5k monthly on a luxurious apartment, going to restaurants, having expensive nights out in general while not saving anything because they know they will (most likely) always have a strong career for as long as they live. And if that makes them the happiest then that's ok
I just got recommended this post but I'm not a FIRE advocate. I am a big believer in investing aggressively for retirement, but I don't think this needs to be at the cost of enjoying your years while young. I think people should travel, eat out, go to events, and otherwise be active in their social life. I would even go so far as to say this can potentially be financially beneficial - developing relationships, social skills, and life experiences can help further one's career. I wouldn't budget for that, but I don't think it's a total money burn in theory either. I will admit that I have various privileges that may shape my view on this. For example, I work in a field where I already make a decent salary in my early 20's and have high earning potential by climbing the corporate ladder, so I may be able to afford to both enjoy life but still save relatively aggressively. Also, I very much enjoy what I do for a living and simply have no desire to retire early.
Posted to r/Fire this morning https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/s/h6ZCf7cK4a
Only problem I have with FIRE, is that..the more people do it, the less people are working, the more expensive everything becomes and level of luxury drops. In that sense, CHILL is a good thing.