Early Retirement (2006) • Hacker News Board

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#211

Post by neogodless » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

evo_9 wrote: post #77

My dad told me after he retired it was his biggest mistake in life. He'd started a business with a friend in the 1970's that became quite successful in the Detroit Metro area. He retired and like a good Italian, bought a house in Florida and played golf everyday. After a few months he hated his new life, and wished he'd never sold his business. He realized after he retired that his work was something he enjoyed doing…

> bought a house in Florida and played golf everyday

It sounds like this was one of the big mistakes. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it's hard to see it all now, but it sounds like he could've attempted to transition some of his best business relationships into personal ones, with lunches and/or some other kinds of personal meet-ups. Of course, enjoying the work, it does sound like he sold too soon!

This is still a personal anecdote though. As per the article, we aren't very good at predicting or evaluating what makes us happy. We think retiring and doing "other things" is what we want, but is it? It might be working, running a business, or golfing. You have to figure that out for yourself, and ideally in a way that doesn't require irreversible decisions.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#212

Post by throwaway894345 » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #199

throwaway894345 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living? Many are. The others don't understand economics, i.e., they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires, not least of all because of the sheer amount of misinformation.

If you mean “subscribe to the ideology of the Austrian school” when you say “understand economics”, the above makes some sense.

I was quite clear about what I meant:

> they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires

Anyone who thinks this is merely "ideology"--that there are non-capitalist systems that afford better quality of life for less labor--is invited to support their position with evidence.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#213

Post by hahamrfunnyguy » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

I went down to three days a week four years ago and it's one of the best decisions I've ever made.

At first, I planned on working on an existing business but I decided not to do that and started making YouTube videos because I wanted something else to do on my days off. That was fun at first but got monotonous fast. I volunteered for a political campaign for a year, and now now I am working on another business that I am really excited about. For me, I definitely have to have something productive to do or I get bored.

I own a home with no debt and am pretty frugal so I could probably "retire" now, but will probably keep working until my new business starts making money. Once that happens, I'll probably shift over to working entirely for myself. I don't think I'll stop "working", whether it's something that makes money or not. The beauty is that since I've been pushing towards financial independence, I'll always have plenty of "extra" cash that I can use for whatever I want. If I do decide to retire, I'll probably keep my development skills active so I'll always be able to find work if need be.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#214

Post by tunesmith » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:20 PM UTC

marktangotango wrote: post #36

cfeduke wrote: post #29

The greatest expense for me in retirement is now health insurance so it makes sense for me to instead work for insurance coverage and put my wealth towards an inheritance for my children. I used to naively believe once I paid off my mortgage, had a substantial retirement account and savings - a couple million dollars - I'd no longer work. It's also very difficult to get off of the treadmill of spending a lot of money…

This is the reality of the situation; until you're eligible for (edit) medicare, health is a significant expense. When paired with the "hedonistic treadmill" of spending, early retirement takes a lot more investment than many suspect. Even at a safe withdrawal rate of 4%, $2M is "only" $80k a year. You're not driving around in Ferrari's and eating caviar on that (parodying a rich lifestyle here). Of course there are…

For the US, retiring, at least for most that are on the verge of retiring savings-wise, means you have a mix of regular savings (that has already been taxed) and 401k savings (that hasn't). If you figure out how to limit your 401k distributions, then it may be possible to keep your taxable income low enough that you get ACA subsidies to limit the cost of your health insurance premiums. Although maybe that's not the expensive part?

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#215

Post by walletburst » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

snek_case wrote: post #48

marktangotango wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reality of the situation; until you're eligible for (edit) medicare, health is a significant expense. When paired with the "hedonistic treadmill" of spending, early retirement takes a lot more investment than many suspect. Even at a safe withdrawal rate of 4%, $2M is "only" $80k a year. You're not driving around in Ferrari's and eating caviar on that (parodying a rich lifestyle here). Of course there are…

I feel like I'd be happy enough just maintaining my current lifestyle more or less, but yes, we as software developers tend to be paid relatively well, so just matching that can be quite expensive. I also feel kind of uncomfortable with the idea of retiring without a little bit of extra safety margin in case of economic turmoil. If 2M is enough to retire, I'd probably want 2.5 just to be extra safe. My current job pa…

Sounds like Coast FIRE would be a good approach for you:

https://walletburst.com/coast-fire-calc

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#216

Post by neogodless » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

ike77 wrote: post #101

2sk21 wrote: post #75

I retired early recently - I am in my mid 50s. It's not anywhere as hard as people seem to think. With a disciplined approach to investing, I think that it's very much possible to reach financial independence with a typical tech salary in the US. I achieved FI without an extraordinarily high salary, stock grants or participating in an IPO. There is a treasure trove of information in the Bogleheads wiki: https://www.b…

What if a stagflation of 15 years starts now? Will you have to work again?

It's a valid question.

The honest answer could simply be "yes." Depending on your circumstances. The more nuanced answer is...

Look at things like The Trinity Study / Monte Carlo simulation, https://www.cfiresim.com/, https://engaging-data.com/visualizing-4-rule/, https://firecalc.com/intro.php, https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubeducation/c... and so on.

To start, we assume that 1) we cannot predict the future but 2) the best predictor of the future is the past.

Then we make some assumptions that we think we could apply to the future, like how much we'll spend each year, how we'll allocate our assets / investments, and how long we need our money to last. From there, we take historical data and apply our unique assumptions to the historical data simulating each time period available, and we take a close look at the results.

To get 100% success, you'd need something like no inflation, or invested assets greatly exceeding our expenses. For example, if you spend $100,000 / year, and you have $4 million invested, even if inflation matched your investment return, you could still live off this money for 40 years.

But you probably don't need a true 100% success rate. More likely, you need just a bit of flexibility, and a backup plan. Most failures happen due to something like stagflation or negative returns very early into your retirement. Your best option at that point is to return to work and reduce expenses until you've passed some of the worst, and then return to retirement with a much higher predicted success rate. If you retire without flexibility and a backup plan, blindly spending 4% of your assets each year regardless of the market and inflation, staglation could ruin your chances of success. But why would anyone choose to do that?

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#217

Post by nodejs_rulez_1 » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #149

cfeduke wrote: post #29

The greatest expense for me in retirement is now health insurance so it makes sense for me to instead work for insurance coverage and put my wealth towards an inheritance for my children. I used to naively believe once I paid off my mortgage, had a substantial retirement account and savings - a couple million dollars - I'd no longer work. It's also very difficult to get off of the treadmill of spending a lot of money…

Once you have kids the calculation changes, at least for me. I could retire comfortably in a few years, but my earning power is at it's peak. Every extra year I work provides significant extra resources for my family, to help the girls afford their first houses and get a good start in life when they graduate. I'll probably work another 5 years beyond what I'd probably do if it was purely about self-interest for mysel…

> ...to help the girls afford their first houses and get a good start in life when they graduate...

I thought having a possibility to graduate is 'the good start' in life.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#218

Post by jorblumesea » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #203

jorblumesea wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are significantly different if you see the plans and the network you're in. Just look at the costs for the plans I linked above. It's really not the same, or even close. Let's take one of the more popular plans on the exchange for Washington state. https://www.insurance.wa.gov/rates/bridgespan-health-company... https://www.insurance.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/bri...

Those premiums look the same as those for employer sponsored health insurance: https://www.statista.com/statistics/632151/premiums-for-empl... https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2020-11... https://files.kff.org/attachment/Summary-of-Findings-Employe...

Those premiums are significantly above what corporate employees pay. My premiums at my current and last job were way below those figures.

Keep in mind "private employers" is a huge bucket and would encompass a wide range of companies, including smaller companies with likely small budgets.

It is not reflective of many of the benefits many SWEs would get.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#219

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #212

dragonwriter wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean “subscribe to the ideology of the Austrian school” when you say “understand economics”, the above makes some sense.

I was quite clear about what I meant: > they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires Anyone who thinks this is merely "ideology"--that there are non-capitalist systems that afford better quality of life for less labor--is invited to support their position with evidence.

> Anyone who thinks this is merely “ideology”--that there are non-capitalist systems that afford better quality of life for less labor–is invited to support their position with evidence.

The evidence is the replacement of the system originally named “capitalism” by its critics, under pressure from its critics, throughout the developed world by the modern mixed economy in the decades of the mid-20th Century, with the modern mixed economy, which afforded the working masses a better quality of life for less labor directly by restraining the property relationships defining capitalism.

The question isn’t whether you can do better in terms of quality of life for workers with less labor than capitalism, the question is whether there is a limit to how far you can move away from capitalism while continuing to improve on that.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#220

Post by hnfong » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #118

nafizh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read all the philosophy in the world. It doesn't automatically turn into actionable realities. Also, any philosophy is subjective, you are a human, you said something, I am a human, I beg to differ and so on and on....

Absolutely you can read it to death and still glean nothing from it. I don't know how many times I've had to reread, and I usually continue to do so. And to that end it takes more than just reading it, but if one wants to ask some profound questions about the world around oneself now that one doesn't have someone breathing down one's neck then one should probably start where others left off. It'll save a little time.…

The counter argument is that "philosophers" could be dead wrong. Imagine the range of different philosophies that existed in various times and places. Popular interpretations of philosophical texts could be wrong (referring to your suggestion of reading an encyclopedia). You might not even understand the "right" question in the first place.

My personal experience is that giving the problem space a bit of thought and coming to preliminary conclusions before comparing with what mainstream thought has to say makes the whole ordeal more fun and possibly lets you learn the finer nuances and different perspectives more.

PS: the analogy with libc is quite interesting after thinking about it for a bit actually. If you just want to use a C library, you don't reimplement it. But if you want to learn about C or libc specifically, re-implementing libc from the specs is probably the best way to do it.