Retirement... (i.e. what are you going to be after you've grown up)

Quevy · Tuesday at 2:36 PM

Kirun said:
I genuinely don't understand this cultural obsession some people have with finding their "purpose" through constant work, especially when that work is in service of someone else's bottom line.

Now, don't get me wrong, I totally get finding satisfaction in working on your stuff. Your home, your car, your garden, your craft. That's building something tangible that reflects who you are. But deriving a deep, spiritual sense of "meaning" from answering emails, managing office politics, or hitting imaginary KPIs? That just seems like corporate cosplay with a psychological twist.

And yet, some folks seem genuinely lost without it. They retire and immediately panic. Not necessarily because their body is falling apart, but because they don't know who they are if they're not grinding for someone else. It reads like Stockholm Syndrome.

Look, I get that meaning is subjective. If your dream is to waste away at a country club working on your short game while wearing pastel polos, go nuts. That's your business. But if you're still clocking in, still shuffling paperwork, still chasing some illusion of productivity while your joints are screaming and your spine is trying to secede from your body, that's the hill you’re dying on?

At some point, you've got to stop confusing labor with virtue. Working yourself into the grave for a sense of identity isn't noble. It's delusional. I don't think we were put on this planet to fill out spreadsheets, accept Teams meeting invites, and die tired.

If that makes sense to you and leaves you "fulfilled", great. I'll just never understand or comprehend the logic of it.

I remember seeing some state out there that people who retire and don't have other hobbies tend to die early. My dad is in is mid 70s and still works a retail (cashier) job part time. He can completely retire if wants, but working gives him something to do and lets him feel like he's still earning his keep.

Kirun · Tuesday at 2:46 PM

Quevy said:
I remember seeing some state out there that people who retire and don't have other hobbies tend to die early. My dad is in is mid 70s and still works a retail (cashier) job part time. He can completely retire if wants, but working gives him something to do and lets him feel like he's still earning his keep.

Sure, I totally get it for folks who are 65 and older. They spent much of their lives without the internet, had limited TV options, and didn't grow up surrounded by endless digital distractions. Their world was smaller in a lot of ways, and their access to entertainment or stimulation was finite. On top of that, many never really adapted to smartphones or modern tech, so having any kind of structured, day-to-day activity in retirement can understandably feel meaningful or even necessary.

And to be fair, they lived through a version of America that, at least in some ways, still made an effort to support its citizens and offer a sense of security or upward mobility. That's a vastly different context than what the 30 to 50-something crowd has experienced. For us, the system has shifted and not in our favor. We've been sold a false bill of goods, told to chase stability and meaning through work that often leaves us overextended and under-rewarded.

So when I hear people from this generation talk about carrying that same grind mindset into retirement, I just have to wonder: why keep playing along with a system that already failed to deliver on its promises? Isn't that the moment to finally step off the treadmill and live on your own terms?

Quevy · Tuesday at 2:57 PM

Kirun said:
Sure, I totally get it for folks who are 65 and older. They spent much of their lives without the internet, had limited TV options, and didn't grow up surrounded by endless digital distractions. Their world was smaller in a lot of ways, and their access to entertainment or stimulation was finite. On top of that, many never really adapted to smartphones or modern tech, so having any kind of structured, day-to-day activity in retirement can understandably feel meaningful or even necessary.

And to be fair, they lived through a version of America that, at least in some ways, still made an effort to support its citizens and offer a sense of security or upward mobility. That's a vastly different context than what the 30 to 50-something crowd has experienced. For us, the system has shifted and not in our favor. We've been sold a false bill of goods, told to chase stability and meaning through work that often leaves us overextended and under-rewarded.

So when I hear people from this generation talk about carrying that same grind mindset into retirement, I just have to wonder: why keep playing along with a system that already failed to deliver on its promises? Isn't that the moment to finally step off the treadmill and live on your own terms?

Fair enough. What does it mean to live on your own terms?

Kirun · Tuesday at 3:03 PM

Quevy said:
Fair enough. What does it mean to live on your own terms?

Living on your own terms, especially in the context of retirement or even just mid-life reassessment, means finally reclaiming your time, energy, and attention from systems and expectations that were never really designed with your well-being in mind. At least to me.

For most of us in the 30+ crowd, we've spent decades in a world that sold us a very specific script: go to school, get a stable job, grind away, contribute, consume, repeat and if you're lucky, maybe you'll earn a slice of comfort down the line. But the truth is, that system has largely hollowed out. Wages stagnate, costs rise, the social safety net is a patchwork at best, and many are left juggling burnout, debt, and the lingering sense that we're being strung along for the inevitable fall.

So to "live on your own terms" is to finally opt out of that lie - to stop chasing productivity as a moral virtue, to stop defining your worth by your output, and to stop confusing exhaustion with success. It means recognizing that you don't owe your remaining time to the same machine that already took your youth, your labor, and your peace of mind.

Whether it's spending your days reading, walking, gardening, traveling, making music, or just doing nothing without guilt, living on your own terms is about intentionally choosing how you spend your time, based on what you value. Not your employer. Not society. Not the myth of constant hustle.

Quevy · Tuesday at 3:21 PM

Kirun said:
Living on your own terms, especially in the context of retirement or even just mid-life reassessment, means finally reclaiming your time, energy, and attention from systems and expectations that were never really designed with your well-being in mind. At least to me.

For most of us in the 30+ crowd, we've spent decades in a world that sold us a very specific script: go to school, get a stable job, grind away, contribute, consume, repeat and if you're lucky, maybe you'll earn a slice of comfort down the line. But the truth is, that system has largely hollowed out. Wages stagnate, costs rise, the social safety net is a patchwork at best, and many are left juggling burnout, debt, and the lingering sense that we're being strung along for the inevitable fall.

So to "live on your own terms" is to finally opt out of that lie - to stop chasing productivity as a moral virtue, to stop defining your worth by your output, and to stop confusing exhaustion with success. It means recognizing that you don't owe your remaining time to the same machine that already took your youth, your labor, and your peace of mind.

Whether it's spending your days reading, walking, gardening, traveling, making music, or just doing nothing without guilt, living on your own terms is about intentionally choosing how you spend your time, based on what you value. Not your employer. Not society. Not the myth of constant hustle.

Yeah, the whole college thing was just a way of turning many into indentured servants, for sure. Prospective on life changes quiet a bit once you become debt free. That being said, I don't think there has ever been a time when people have been able to spend days reading, walking, gardening, traveling, etc. Retirement is a modern concept that was invented by FDR (one of the worst presidents in history). If I had my choice, I would never retire. Life has been a grind since the beginning of time.

Kirun · Tuesday at 7:25 PM

Quevy said:
Yeah, the whole college thing was just a way of turning many into indentured servants, for sure. Prospective on life changes quiet a bit once you become debt free. That being said, I don't think there has ever been a time when people have been able to spend days reading, walking, gardening, traveling, etc. Retirement is a modern concept that was invented by FDR (one of the worst presidents in history). If I had my choice, I would never retire. Life has been a grind since the beginning of time.

I agree with the first part - that the college-industrial complex absolutely turned entire generations into debt-bound laborers before they even got their first real paycheck. And yeah, becoming debt-free can be incredibly clarifying. It forces you to re-evaluate what's actually worth your time and effort.

But the rest of your take leans a bit too hard into the "life has always been a grind, so just accept it" narrative and that's where I push back.

Sure, retirement as a formal social policy is relatively new. But the desire to slow down, to step back from labor, and to finally live on your own terms? That's not some invention of the New Deal, that's been around as long as people have had to work to survive. The difference now is we should have the means to make that possible for more people. Technological advancement, automation, global productivity, all of it should free us from the idea that our only value is in how hard we grind until we drop.

And yeah, life has always been hard in various ways - famine, war, disease, but that doesn't mean we should accept meaningless labor as some kind of noble tradition. That's just inherited struggle dressed up as virtue. Our ancestors didn't work themselves into the ground because they thought it was spiritually enriching. They did it because they had no choice. The fact that we do have some choice now, however limited, should be seen as an opportunity, not something to dismiss because life has "always been hard."

It isn't weakness. It's not laziness. It's the long-overdue right to exist without being in service to someone else's profit, especially after you've already given the system 30 or 40 years of your life. Wanting to read, walk, grow things, raid Molten Core all day, or travel isn't some modern indulgence. It's more a rejection against the idea that were only as good as our productivity.

So no, I don't think we need to romanticize the grind just because it has "always been there."

Seananigans · Tuesday at 9:52 PM

Kirun said:
but that doesn't mean we should accept meaningless labor as some kind of noble tradition.

Is it possible your own situation has given you a narrow perspective that you are projecting onto others? I don’t think anyone in here is talking about “grinding away” at anything they consider “meaningless labor.”

It seems clear you view your own job as meaningless labor, but that’s not true of everyone; I’d wager it’s a minority even. And beyond that, I don’t even think most people in here are talking about continuing to do the exact same thing they have been doing, just for fewer hours per week. But that’s a guess.

BrutulTM · Tuesday at 10:08 PM

Seananigans said:
Is it possible your own situation has given you a narrow perspective that you are projecting onto others? I don’t think anyone in here is talking about “grinding away” at anything they consider “meaningless labor.”

It seems clear you view your own job as meaningless labor, but that’s not true of everyone; I’d wager it’s a minority even. And beyond that, I don’t even think most people in here are talking about continuing to do the exact same thing they have been doing, just for fewer hours per week. But that’s a guess.

Yeah, it's not like anyone is planning to retire to working 80 hours a week digging ditches but all internet arguments have to continue until they're totally retarded.

Kirun · Tuesday at 11:02 PM

Seananigans said:
Is it possible your own situation has given you a narrow perspective that you are projecting onto others? I don’t think anyone in here is talking about “grinding away” at anything they consider “meaningless labor.”

It seems clear you view your own job as meaningless labor, but that’s not true of everyone; I’d wager it’s a minority even. And beyond that, I don’t even think most people in here are talking about continuing to do the exact same thing they have been doing, just for fewer hours per week. But that’s a guess.

Fair question. I think we're all shaped by our experiences, and sure, mine absolutely inform my view. But I'd argue that what you're calling a "narrow perspective" is actually a broader critique of a system a lot of people are quietly disillusioned with but rarely question out loud.

It's not just about me or whether I personally find my job meaningful, it's about the bigger picture: how many people have internalized the idea that their "worth" or "meaning" is inexorably tied to productivity, even after decades of giving their best energy to employers, corporations, or institutions that rarely give back in kind? The issue isn't whether some people find meaning in their work, of course they do. That's valid. But we have to acknowledge how much of that meaning is just survival wrapped in "purpose" because the alternative of opting out/retirement has been made so economically, socially, and psychologically unattractive.

And I'm not suggesting everyone is talking about grinding away at the same job until they die, but the consistent tone across a lot of these conversations is still one of "continuing to work" in retirement. And I just think that deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets. After 30+ years of labor, often under systems that exploit, underpay, or burn people out, why is the fallback assumption to keep working, even "just a little"?

That's the part I'm interrogating. Not individual choices, but the cultural programming that makes not working seem suspect or lazy. If someone truly loves what they do and wants to keep doing it? Great. But let's not pretend that should/has to be the majority experience or that it's immune from systemic influence.

So no, I'm not projecting. I'm questioning a "norm" that far too many people accept without realizing it was built to serve something other than their fulfillment.

Quevy · Wednesday at 12:05 AM

Kirun said:
I agree with the first part - that the college-industrial complex absolutely turned entire generations into debt-bound laborers before they even got their first real paycheck. And yeah, becoming debt-free can be incredibly clarifying. It forces you to re-evaluate what's actually worth your time and effort.

But the rest of your take leans a bit too hard into the "life has always been a grind, so just accept it" narrative and that's where I push back.

Sure, retirement as a formal social policy is relatively new. But the desire to slow down, to step back from labor, and to finally live on your own terms? That's not some invention of the New Deal, that's been around as long as people have had to work to survive. The difference now is we should have the means to make that possible for more people. Technological advancement, automation, global productivity, all of it should free us from the idea that our only value is in how hard we grind until we drop.

And yeah, life has always been hard in various ways - famine, war, disease, but that doesn't mean we should accept meaningless labor as some kind of noble tradition. That's just inherited struggle dressed up as virtue. Our ancestors didn't work themselves into the ground because they thought it was spiritually enriching. They did it because they had no choice. The fact that we do have some choice now, however limited, should be seen as an opportunity, not something to dismiss because life has "always been hard."

It isn't weakness. It's not laziness. It's the long-overdue right to exist without being in service to someone else's profit, especially after you've already given the system 30 or 40 years of your life. Wanting to read, walk, grow things, raid Molten Core all day, or travel isn't some modern indulgence. It's more a rejection against the idea that were only as good as our productivity.

So no, I don't think we need to romanticize the grind just because it has "always been there."

Anyone can "live free" if they can accumulate enough wealth to do it. No one else should have to pay for it.

On the same note, some people, if not most, like working. Why do you have a problem with that.

Quevy · Wednesday at 12:13 AM

Kirun said:
After 30+ years of labor, often under systems that exploit, underpay, or burn people out, why is the fallback assumption to keep working, even "just a little"?

Not everyone is underpaid. Some must be overpaid is after all. And if that's the case, why would you quit a game you're winning.

Lambourne · Wednesday at 3:24 AM

Kirun said:
Fair question. I think we're all shaped by our experiences, and sure, mine absolutely inform my view. But I'd argue that what you're calling a "narrow perspective" is actually a broader critique of a system a lot of people are quietly disillusioned with but rarely question out loud.

It's not just about me or whether I personally find my job meaningful, it's about the bigger picture: how many people have internalized the idea that their "worth" or "meaning" is inexorably tied to productivity, even after decades of giving their best energy to employers, corporations, or institutions that rarely give back in kind? The issue isn't whether some people find meaning in their work, of course they do. That's valid. But we have to acknowledge how much of that meaning is just survival wrapped in "purpose" because the alternative of opting out/retirement has been made so economically, socially, and psychologically unattractive.

And I'm not suggesting everyone is talking about grinding away at the same job until they die, but the consistent tone across a lot of these conversations is still one of "continuing to work" in retirement. And I just think that deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets. After 30+ years of labor, often under systems that exploit, underpay, or burn people out, why is the fallback assumption to keep working, even "just a little"?

That's the part I'm interrogating. Not individual choices, but the cultural programming that makes not working seem suspect or lazy. If someone truly loves what they do and wants to keep doing it? Great. But let's not pretend that should/has to be the majority experience or that it's immune from systemic influence.

So no, I'm not projecting. I'm questioning a "norm" that far too many people accept without realizing it was built to serve something other than their fulfillment.

You could argue this is a critique of consumerism by another name. People get so used to wanting things that they have no choice but to work forever because they lead a vastly inflated lifestyle, most of their money spent on excess and the interest to pay for that excess because they couldn't even wait to save up for it.

A big part of the FIRE movement is decoupling from that cycle of consumption and finding happiness in freedom rather than in buying shit. I found Mr Money Mustache over a decade ago and getting that shift in perspective into your head absolutely works. My finances have dramatically improved as a result.

The root cause of all this excess consumerism is a coupling of mass media and psychology. This is a 4-part documentary on how that shift happened during the 20th century. It's 20 years old but every bit as relevant today.

lurkingdirk · Wednesday at 6:49 PM

I'm 52. I retired ten years ago. At that point I had accounts that would cover each child's education, regardless of what they did, and would give them a big starter fund when they were starting a career. For a home, a startup, whatever. My house is paid off, and I have zero debt. Well, to be totally honest I pull a mortgage on my house. Every five years I negotiate a five year mortgage of about $5K. It keeps my property taxes low, and it helps to maintain my credit rating. We have enough tucked away that my wife and I can live until 110 and be okay financially. We both agreed that if we live until 110, we're going to throw ourselves into the abyss.

Having been "retired" for 10 years, I have a different approach for you all to consider. Upon first retiring I went hard-core on my property. I sold off all my rental houses, and used the money to establish a special place. Made a huge pond, stocked it with fish. Eat a lot of fish now. Pond requires some maintenance. Have a very big orchard. Have a ridiculously large vegetable garden. I grow huge amounts of food for my church's food pantry. At least a bushel of tomatoes every other week, for example. I built a wood working shop, a barn, an equipment storage building, and a few other odds and sods. All have electric, all have heat/cooling. I have a LOT of animals. I figured when I didn't have to work any more, I'd just hunker down and take care of the homestead, spend as much time with my wife and children as possible, and that would be great.

It good, not great. I have a dude I hire to help maintain the property, feed the animals, help keep up the gardens, blah blah blah. I enjoy that work, but I missed going to work, and interacting with other people. There was something missing. After I hired this dude to help take care of a lot of things here (I'm obviously still involved and I love all of that), I started to look back at flipping houses. It was a side thing I did for years to get to where I was at 42. It makes good money. So I'm flipping houses. There's a local realty agency who purchases a LOT of homes, remodel them, then sell them. They always have at least one project for me. I have a crew of the most unlikely misfits I'm able to employ. The house flipping is making me good money, I don't need it to, but it gets me out of the house, keeps me busy, and allows me to provide a good living wage for some people who need it. I have former felons working for me. I pay a good wage, and I get to go into a house and decide what walls to remove, what lights to put in, and to engage my creative side with my physical knowledge side. I employ people, I make money, new owners are delighted.

So for me retirement includes work. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I only work when I want to. I have others who can take over if I want to be away. Between my little "farm," flipping houses, volunteering with church, and my family I have a rich, full life. That's what I need for retirement. As I continue to age and my mobility/abilities wane, I can drop various things to simplify.

I have an issue with the thread title. I shall not grow up.

TomServo · Wednesday at 7:29 PM

lurkingdirk said:
I'm 52. I retired ten years ago. At that point I had accounts that would cover each child's education, regardless of what they did, and would give them a big starter fund when they were starting a career. For a home, a startup, whatever. My house is paid off, and I have zero debt. Well, to be totally honest I pull a mortgage on my house. Every five years I negotiate a five year mortgage of about $5K. It keeps my property taxes low, and it helps to maintain my credit rating. We have enough tucked away that my wife and I can live until 110 and be okay financially. We both agreed that if we live until 110, we're going to throw ourselves into the abyss.

Having been "retired" for 10 years, I have a different approach for you all to consider. Upon first retiring I went hard-core on my property. I sold off all my rental houses, and used the money to establish a special place. Made a huge pond, stocked it with fish. Eat a lot of fish now. Pond requires some maintenance. Have a very big orchard. Have a ridiculously large vegetable garden. I grow huge amounts of food for my church's food pantry. At least a bushel of tomatoes every other week, for example. I built a wood working shop, a barn, an equipment storage building, and a few other odds and sods. All have electric, all have heat/cooling. I have a LOT of animals. I figured when I didn't have to work any more, I'd just hunker down and take care of the homestead, spend as much time with my wife and children as possible, and that would be great.

It good, not great. I have a dude I hire to help maintain the property, feed the animals, help keep up the gardens, blah blah blah. I enjoy that work, but I missed going to work, and interacting with other people. There was something missing. After I hired this dude to help take care of a lot of things here (I'm obviously still involved and I love all of that), I started to look back at flipping houses. It was a side thing I did for years to get to where I was at 42. It makes good money. So I'm flipping houses. There's a local realty agency who purchases a LOT of homes, remodel them, then sell them. They always have at least one project for me. I have a crew of the most unlikely misfits I'm able to employ. The house flipping is making me good money, I don't need it to, but it gets me out of the house, keeps me busy, and allows me to provide a good living wage for some people who need it. I have former felons working for me. I pay a good wage, and I get to go into a house and decide what walls to remove, what lights to put in, and to engage my creative side with my physical knowledge side. I employ people, I make money, new owners are delighted.

So for me retirement includes work. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I only work when I want to. I have others who can take over if I want to be away. Between my little "farm," flipping houses, volunteering with church, and my family I have a rich, full life. That's what I need for retirement. As I continue to age and my mobility/abilities wane, I can drop various things to simplify.

I have an issue with the thread title. I shall not grow up.

This reads like a foler post

Gravel · Wednesday at 8:39 PM

Quevy said:
Not everyone is underpaid. Some must be overpaid is after all. And if that's the case, why would you quit a game you're winning.

This kind of reminds me of a video I was watching yesterday that talked about the marginal value of each dollar saved. The broader topic was about "tiers" of net worth. One of those tiers was $1-10M, and how the majority of people who make it to $1M will never see the next tier, and it's largely due to the marginal value of saving each additional dollar becomes a bad tradeoff of time. Typically the people who do exceed it are the

Cad 's who make a boat load of money younger and also have a stake in a business.

I was just talking about it with my wife 20 minutes ago when we were walking the dogs, in fact. But if you make say $200k as a household and are saving a solid $50k a year, and you've got a $2-3 million portfolio saved up, what's the value of working an additional year (with the assumption that you can live off the $80-120k that a $2-3m portfolio provides)? Is it worth "going without" $50k of earnings for the year to add a whopping 2% to your portfolio? Or do you just pull the plug and retire? That's the option we chose, albeit with lower numbers (we have a lower annual spend, didn't make that much money, and our portfolio at retirement was significantly less).

The guy also talked about how someone with a $1m and a $5m net worth don't really live significantly different lives. Yeah, you might eat slightly better, have a slightly nicer house, and take slightly better vacations. But quality of life is pretty much the same. Which is also a conversation my wife and I had right before we retired. We were looking at houses and looked at some on the water. I remember saying we could buy one but it'd likely mean working another 2-3 years. Neither of us cared enough to do that, so we settled on a more modest location.

But to address your point, you think there's a "game" that can be won. It's a tradeoff. You're always selling your time for money. You may think it's a good deal, but you have a finite amount of time to trade. Is the winning move to trade a year for a bunch of money if you don't need money anymore? The video also talks about that, for those individuals with Cad money. When you have more money than you could ever spend, suddenly you start realizing that it's the other shit that actually matters.

I'll see if I can find the video.

Khane · Wednesday at 8:43 PM

The 1m and 5m net worth might not live all that differently when that is their net worth but 5m will grow way, way faster and 10 years later it will be vastly different (under "normal" circumstances)

zzeris · Wednesday at 8:44 PM

lurkingdirk said:
I'm 52. I retired ten years ago. At that point I had accounts that would cover each child's education, regardless of what they did, and would give them a big starter fund when they were starting a career. For a home, a startup, whatever. My house is paid off, and I have zero debt. Well, to be totally honest I pull a mortgage on my house. Every five years I negotiate a five year mortgage of about $5K. It keeps my property taxes low, and it helps to maintain my credit rating. We have enough tucked away that my wife and I can live until 110 and be okay financially. We both agreed that if we live until 110, we're going to throw ourselves into the abyss.

Having been "retired" for 10 years, I have a different approach for you all to consider. Upon first retiring I went hard-core on my property. I sold off all my rental houses, and used the money to establish a special place. Made a huge pond, stocked it with fish. Eat a lot of fish now. Pond requires some maintenance. Have a very big orchard. Have a ridiculously large vegetable garden. I grow huge amounts of food for my church's food pantry. At least a bushel of tomatoes every other week, for example. I built a wood working shop, a barn, an equipment storage building, and a few other odds and sods. All have electric, all have heat/cooling. I have a LOT of animals. I figured when I didn't have to work any more, I'd just hunker down and take care of the homestead, spend as much time with my wife and children as possible, and that would be great.

It good, not great. I have a dude I hire to help maintain the property, feed the animals, help keep up the gardens, blah blah blah. I enjoy that work, but I missed going to work, and interacting with other people. There was something missing. After I hired this dude to help take care of a lot of things here (I'm obviously still involved and I love all of that), I started to look back at flipping houses. It was a side thing I did for years to get to where I was at 42. It makes good money. So I'm flipping houses. There's a local realty agency who purchases a LOT of homes, remodel them, then sell them. They always have at least one project for me. I have a crew of the most unlikely misfits I'm able to employ. The house flipping is making me good money, I don't need it to, but it gets me out of the house, keeps me busy, and allows me to provide a good living wage for some people who need it. I have former felons working for me. I pay a good wage, and I get to go into a house and decide what walls to remove, what lights to put in, and to engage my creative side with my physical knowledge side. I employ people, I make money, new owners are delighted.

So for me retirement includes work. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I only work when I want to. I have others who can take over if I want to be away. Between my little "farm," flipping houses, volunteering with church, and my family I have a rich, full life. That's what I need for retirement. As I continue to age and my mobility/abilities wane, I can drop various things to simplify.

I have an issue with the thread title. I shall not grow up.

Bro, I might use you as an expert of knowledge when I remodel my house before selling to retire down South if you're willing.

Gravel · Wednesday at 8:48 PM

Khane said:
The 1m and 5m net worth might not live all that differently when that is their net worth but 5m will grow way, way faster and 10 years later it will be vastly different (under "normal" circumstances)

The point he was making was that if you have $5m, you're not flying a private jet. No matter how well your portfolio does, you'll never be the super rich. Yeah, it will provide you with more comfort, but you're still only living marginally better.

I hope this doesn't sound gloating, but when you've got as much money as we do, money isn't really a concern anymore. If I had an extra $5 million, what would I do with it? Not a whole lot different. Like I said, I'd probably build a nicer house in a nicer area. But it's not going to be a $10 million mansion on Hawaii. I'm not going to fly a private jet. I'd fly first class probably (assuming I fly, which I refuse to, but that's a different issue). I'd drive a slightly better car. I'd probably build a drum studio. Are any of these things life changing from where I'm at now, as someone who retired at 39? Absolutely not.

Khane · Wednesday at 8:54 PM

The amount of money someone who retires at 39 with 1m has when they turn 59, etc, etc, will be wildly different than someone who retires at 39 with 5m.

So what that guy is saying.... is kind of silly and meaningless. Because the person who retires with 1m will never really fly private, but later in life the person who retired at 5m absolutely could. He's right for a short period of time, and more and more wrong the longer the time horizon is.

Gravel · Wednesday at 8:56 PM

You seem to be purposefully missing the point just to create an argument. Have fun with that, not worth my time.

Retirement... (i.e. what are you going to be after you've grown up)

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Buzzfeed Editor

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Buzzfeed Editor

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Buzzfeed Editor

Honorary Shit-PhD

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

Buzzfeed Editor

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

AssHat Taint

Mr. Poopybutthole

Got something right about marriage

The Real Benny Johnson

Mr. Poopybutthole

Got something right about marriage

Mr. Poopybutthole