I don’t care what you call your blog, I get a lot out of reading it.

Thanks for this explanation. Several of these points have occurred to me over the past several years, but you put them into writing so clearly and concisely. I could not agree more that working for decades in an unsatisfying job is a waste of a lifetime.

This is an interesting discussion. I definitely consider myself “retired” (or at least semi-retired) because one year ago I was able to accomplish my goal of leaving the fulltime, corporate job behind. I’ve never had the desire to do “nothing”, just wanted to be in control of my own destiny.

I am involved in several part-time, independent ventures. Some work out, some don’t; I’m enjoying the freedom to pursue opportunities and make the most of them.

And I am so happy to find someone else who doesn’t like travelling! Most people think I’m nuts. I’ve done my share and am content now to stay home. Saves money, too.

@Kevin M – 99% No. The 1% is reserved for unknown epiphanies. In our case, but in particular in my case, children have negative cost-benefits. IOW I can probably contribute more if I don’t have children. My greatest fear is having a kid that turns into a complete nuthead. It could happen 😀 . Kids would change the calculations somewhat, but that crazy idea about children costing $500,000 each now is as far out as needing two million for retirement. In terms of living arrangements, I think it would fine until the kids develop mainstream feelings and wanting to be like everybody else (if we don’t get them inoculated against herd mentality before hand 😛 ), but there are indeed families with children that live fulltime in an RV (or on a boat).

@DGI – My soul is worth more than a couple of hundred bucks a month. It’s at least a thousand 😀

@mjukr – This one is related to the blog.

Good post Jacob. The comments seems to be pointing to leaving the corporate world as the retirement point. A lot of people just don’t understand that. I’m planning to leave soon, but need to accumulate just a bit more.

@btbw2380 – And what do you gather about my finances? 🙂 My investments are currently at 42 (thank you recent market run up) times my annual expenses.

My annual expenses could be lower than they currently are. The amount I have is higher than what Dominguez had and it’s similar to what some of the other early retires had such as Terhorst and Kaderlis.

What WOULD surprise me is not earning anything in the next 50 years. If you do something consistently enough to get good at it (which is what I do because I value competence above all else, including status and experiences), money will almost always come to your within a few years unless you actively try to avoid it.

No one needs to accumulate a large sum. Zelinski is a good example. Charles Long is another one. I will say that having “FI money” to fall back on is very nice though.

Me thinks it all just depends on what you consider “work.” I don’t consider volunteering for orgs, be it as a board member or other sort of grunt “work.” I don’t consider gardening work, or writing work–well, except for the day job–everything else (yes, even the stuff they pay me for!) is not “work.” When I get out of the day job grind, I will likely still write for money, volunteer, etc., but I won’t consider a bit of it work.

But then again, I’m probably strange. 😛

Enzo Ferrari once said (so I’m told), “It’s too bad that I make the kind of cars that I do because, once a man’s wealthy enough to own one, he’s too old to really enjoy it.” I think he had a point. Better to drive a Ford Focus and invest the difference in a better, more leisurely and stress-free life.

Jacob, I gather you don’t have a large sum very conservatively invested to fall back on as a safety net. I agree one doesn’t need a lot of money to retire at a young age but to ensure one stays retired, it increases the probabilites they’re not forced to do work they would rather not. Lots of uncertainties over 50 years including the 1% chance of having little Jacobs!

@btbw2380 – I consider 40+ times my annual spending a very large sum indeed. What do you consider large? Realistically speaking, you only need a little over 30 times your annual spending to ensure a century’s worth of survivability. More is overkill; it’s like wearing belt and suspenders and gluing your pants on.

As I began my third year of early retirement this week at 47 years of age, I am very happy about being out of the rat race, especially the commute I so despised over the years.

My hobbies and volunteer work are local and low-cost but very enjoyable and satisfying.

No more alarm clocks. I go to sleep when I want, wake up when I want, and take naps when I want. I do my errands at times when the stores are not busy.

I have earned a few hundred dollars over the last 2 years but I don’t seek out the work.

My ratio of total investments to expenses is about 47:1. It has increased over the least 2 years as my investments have grown more quickly than my expenses.

I come and go as I please. Total freedom, every day.

@jane – I think that’s what I always said. In the worst case, I’d have to go back to work and work like everybody else had been doing all along. A part-time minimum wage job should do it.

Retirement for me would be very similar. I would want to do something I love and get paid rather than doing something I hate and get paid. Great post, thanks for sharing.