FIRE

Including Financial Independence and Retiring Early (FIRE)
ap8889
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 131
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:55 am

FIRE

Postby ap8889 » November 6th, 2016, 5:58 am

I thought we deserved a thread devoted to FI/RE on lemonfool.

A lot of the FIRE information on the internet is US centric, though there are notable blog exceptions like the excellent Simple living in Sussex, fireSTARTER & Retirement Investing Today.

Hopefully the lemon may provide a spot for those seeking Financial Independence to congregate!

What are your FIRE plans?

Itsallaguess
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 182
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby Itsallaguess » November 6th, 2016, 8:30 am

ap8889 wrote:What are your FIRE plans?


I plan on finding out what it means!

:lol:

Itsallaguess

LemonFool
Posts: 8
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:46 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby LemonFool » November 6th, 2016, 8:42 am

Monevator is not strictly FIRE but very useful information.

kempiejon
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 144
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:30 am

Re: FIRE

Postby kempiejon » November 6th, 2016, 8:51 am

Financial Independence Retire Early.

...those seeking Financial Independence to congregate!

Who isn't seeking financial independence?

uspaul666
Posts: 18
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:35 am

Re: FIRE

Postby uspaul666 » November 6th, 2016, 9:29 am

kempiejon wrote:Financial Independence Retire Early.

...those seeking Financial Independence to congregate!

Who isn't seeking financial independence?

Those not prepared to make sacrifices? ;)

MrDoppleGanger
Posts: 12
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:21 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby MrDoppleGanger » November 6th, 2016, 9:54 am

morning ap8889,

That's a good idea. I'll start.

What follows is a lot less 'worked through' than most of the plans I see in the UK FI/RE blog-o-space The plans I often see are of the "I'm x% to FIRE. If I keep saving a% and the markets keep giving me b% then I'll be free in c years with my strategy". I seem to think differently to this, I'm instinctively much more of a pluralist. I read widely and can see something of value in all of the strategies I've looked at - consequently I have trouble signing up to only one of them. Also, I don't really know what I want. I like the idea of retiring early, but my job isn't that bad. I'd like to work less and spend more time with my parents, but what if they both die in the next 2 years? I'm not suggesting mine is a better way of looking at things; I do spend way too much time sitting on the fence, and tend to take the long way around the block to get anywhere..

Instead of a goal, I have decision points - I've penciled the next one in for 2020. They go something like this: "Given where I am and what I want to do, what can I do with the bundle of assets I have to in order to achieve it". The answer to this so far has mainly been "Nothing. Work harder and save more". This moves the focus away from a single goal and toward one of keeping a pile of assets that you can keep rejigging in order to adjust to what you want to do - whatever that may be. I'm more comfortable with that as an endpoint, rather than arriving at your goal only to find that you've not so much moved the goalposts as changed the game.

Anyway, here's some information.

Key bits:
My age: 48
Her age: mid-late 30's (I believe..)
US: unmarried, no kids.

I've a stable job in the tertiary education sector with 20 years contributions to a DB pension which I can draw at 67 (or from 55 with reduction). Herself is in what used to be called a clerical job with no pension contribution besides NICs for state pension (she opted out of the employer one). I don't mind my job so much, but want the option of altering/slowing/stopping around 2020 - my parents live on the other side of the world (in NZ) and are fast approaching their twilight years. A. isn't enamored with the idea of work at all and would happily live off the smell of an oily rag if it meant not having to work in the various viper pits that she keeps jumping between (I suspect she may get bored with doing nothing, but that's an issue for her).

We want two things. First, some flexibility/optionality. We both may/may not want to keep doing what we are, I certainly want some flexibility. Second, I don't want to be here in the winter anymore! I love the UK, just not in Nov,Dec and Jan; there's something about the unforgiving grayness of that time of the year that I've never really managed to cope with since arriving here a quarter odd century ago. That fits in well with spending time with my parents; whether it be extended stays with family (meh), renting or even buying.

My savings rate is about 50% of take home pay, so effectively higher given DB pension and AVCs have already come out. A. is a pretty avid saver as well - her pension equivalent is an ISA with ITs and ETFs. We both LBOM and don't see it as that much of a sacrifice. We're both committed to the FIRE idea. Our house is paid off, we have a small BTL in a town where we could 'retire' to, the mortgage on that will be paid off in 5 years time. So 'downsizing' sits in the background as a possibility.

I've been investing since 2001, savings/contribution rate has varied between about 20-40% (I had a lot of fun in my 20s and 30s) - I've done 'OK-ish' return wise. I strongly suspect I would have done a lot better had I dumped the lot in an ETF (or trackers as they were then). I brought into 'Value' to discover 'Value Trap', into oil explorers to discover 'commodity cycle', into insurers to discover 'Black Swan', etc etc. What seems to have worked for me is buying 'good' companies and leaving them the hell alone (Shell, L&G, WPP etc) - if only I could do more of that ;-). My current strategy is roughly equal parts HYP, ITs (UK G&I, global growth), Prefs and other small and assorted stuff that has done well or might do well one day... I suspect that one day I'll stop treating my portfolio as a plaything and move more toward global ETFs with some active asset allocation and ITs for stability or for hard to get bits (and maybe HYP). The portfolio size is about half what I would like it to be, meaning with a 3.5% drawdown rate it would produce about half the income I would want.

The plan between now and 2020 is to keep doing what we are doing; saving, investing, paying down, YBOM and day dreaming... I'll tighten up the portfolio a bit and think more about a better global allocation. One 'lesson learned' from pre-brexit is that it will not be a very good idea to keep all your assets in sterling. We want to be living more globally and will need an asset allocation that reflects that.

Comments?
DG

TheRIT
Lemon Pip
Posts: 76
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:44 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TheRIT » November 6th, 2016, 10:20 am

My plans are pretty well documented but for completeness:
- I started on the road to FIRE in October 2007.
- I became FI in July this year meaning it took a little less than 9 years. For me FI was a financial date and I called it when I had enough wealth for a paid for home and 40 times annual FIRE spending.
- I plan to FIRE in mid 2017 when I will be 44 years of age. FIRE for me is a non-financial date and requires FI plus some non-financial elements to align.

When it comes to discussing plans I'm fairly well travelled. I've struggled in my non-blog/forum life to get anywhere near a decent discussion and in my blog/forum life there has been plenty of discussion. I've generally come across three types of person:
- The Supportive. A lot of these people are either on a FIRE journey or have retired early themselves.
- The Unicorns or Victims. FIRE is impossible because of X, Y and/or Z.
- The Aggressive. You're being selfish expecting the rest of society to support you, you'll be bored, ...

On the topic of plans a few top level thoughts:
- In the blogging world particularly I see a lot of people either FIRE'ing or planning to FIRE based on following the 4% Rule blindly which effectively means 25 times annual spending. My view is that is an incredibly dangerous assumption and people need to educate themselves on what the 4% Rule is before jumping in with both feet. For example it is US based with the US being one of the best performing global markets in history, it's based on a 30 year retirement with many FIRE'ees possibly being retired for far longer than that, etc
- Now that I'm on the path I struggle to understand why it took me so long to figure it out (it took until age 34) and why so may people won't listen/discuss. After all when it's all boiled down to its most basic it's just maths. You need wealth of £X which can be calculated if you know your spending needs and tolerance to risk (probability of it failing).
- Savings rate is crucial to being able to FIRE. It's important because is gives 2 advantages. One it helps you build your wealth but if you can increase savings rate by spending less the wealth required also diminishes.
- I'm starting to see more and more bloggers who talk about FIRE but in the context of a concept where 'work' overlaps with 'life' because it's not 9 to 5, not 40 hours per work and is something that is 'part of the person'. I'm yet to form an opinion on whether this is FIRE as I don't want to be a Unicorn, Victim or Aggressive. I'd therefore value others views on this.

ap8889
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 131
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:55 am

Re: FIRE

Postby ap8889 » November 6th, 2016, 10:31 am

Funnily enough my father and I were discussing our respective post Brexit portfolio performance: he has simple global etfs and was chuckling as he has spent about 2 minutes thinking about them, and is well ahead.

I on the other hand have spent hours analysing and agonising over individual shares and balance sheets. I have a mixed HYP with ITs portfolio and have largely flatlined and underperformed him by a wide margin.

The global diversification and currency diversification is very worthwhile. Curses....

TheRIT
Lemon Pip
Posts: 76
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:44 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TheRIT » November 6th, 2016, 10:42 am

ap8889 wrote:Funnily enough my father and I were discussing our respective post Brexit portfolio performance: he has simple global etfs and was chuckling as he has spent about 2 minutes thinking about them, and is well ahead.

I on the other hand have spent hours analysing and agonising over individual shares and balance sheets. I have a mixed HYP with ITs portfolio and have largely flatlined and underperformed him by a wide margin.

The global diversification and currency diversification is very worthwhile. Curses....


Other than a few leftovers from earlier learnings (an active fund I can't sell without big taxes, a HYP which has served its purpose) I'm now all about globally diverse low expense asset classes, which are mainly in the form of ETF's from different product providers (Vanguard, iShares feature highly though) for risk reasons and which wherever possible are in tax efficient wrappers again from different providers (HL, TD, YouInvest feature highly). I then just buy the worst performing asset class and rebalance at preset trigger points. Year to date performance is +14% and since Brexit is circa +11%. Of course that's in £'s and if I measured in $'s I'd get a completely different answer.

MrDoppleGanger
Posts: 12
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:21 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby MrDoppleGanger » November 6th, 2016, 11:18 am

TheRIT wrote:- In the blogging world particularly I see a lot of people either FIRE'ing or planning to FIRE based on following the 4% Rule blindly which effectively means 25 times annual spending. My view is that is an incredibly dangerous assumption and people need to educate themselves on what the 4% Rule is before jumping in with both feet. For example it is US based with the US being one of the best performing global markets in history, it's based on a 30 year retirement with many FIRE'ees possibly being retired for far longer than that, etc


Yes I can see that - potentially very dangerous, especially if you want to retire earlier AND are going to live longer. I've used 3-3.5% as a rule of thumb for my portfolio given that even if I do exhaust it completely, we'll have one DB pension that will (just I suspect) keep us fed, watered and housed and possibly 2 state pensions - which may or may not come to anything. All rough and ready guides more than anything as you can see. I'm OK with that given it'll be a little while before we need to decide what we'd like to do, and how much 'resource' we'll have to do it with. I think your assumption of 2-2.5% drawdawn is sensible, given you don't have that as a backstop. It's not as if you can't adjust it should you find you've more capital than you need. Better that than the alternative ..

MrDoppleGanger
Posts: 12
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:21 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby MrDoppleGanger » November 6th, 2016, 11:29 am

ap8889 wrote:The global diversification and currency diversification is very worthwhile. Curses....


Indeed. This definitely needs fixing, but I'm left wondering whether now is the best time to get started on it with the £ being the lowest it's been since whenever it was. And then where to put it? The US doesn't look so appealing (I have been saying that for at least 3 years now..), Asia/Pacfic, Japan, Europe? I need a bullet to bite I suspect.

MrDG

TedSwippet
Posts: 43
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:57 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TedSwippet » November 6th, 2016, 11:33 am

TheRIT wrote:I'm starting to see more and more bloggers who talk about FIRE but in the context of a concept where 'work' overlaps with 'life' because it's not 9 to 5, not 40 hours per work and is something that is 'part of the person'. I'm yet to form an opinion on whether this is FIRE as I don't want to be a Unicorn, Victim or Aggressive. I'd therefore value others views on this.

I struggle with this too. I reached FI about five years ago, and RE earlier this year. Followed a somewhat traditional route -- employee with stable salary throughout -- but with a decade working abroad plus a lucky bit of a leg-up from stock options. I'm now of the opinion that RE for me personally is 'not working for money'.

Part of this is financial. Being in the 40% tax bracket from savings/pension income alone means that doing any paid work at all garners me less than 60% of the benefit, whereas someone else in lower tax brackets will extract much more value for themselves from the same effort. But most of it is that I don't want to be tied to someone else's aspirations, timescales, and deadlines. I currently focus on things that improve me as a person, rather than things that improve my financial situation. Physical and mental health and fitness -- it turns out that sitting at a desk/computer for years on end really screws with your posture as well as your mind state. Learning new skills completely unrelated to previous occupation. Having no TV helps. Top of Maslow's pyramid stuff then, I guess.

So if I were to start out again today, would I follow the same path?

In all honesty I think perhaps not. The lucky breaks weren't pure luck. You have to work hard to position yourself to get lucky, but luck doesn't necessarily follow. And it took me nearly a lifetime of work to understand that as an employee you should focus on the process, not the outcome, because the process is the part that hits your pleasure centres the most. Learning new skills, mental 'flow', and so on. In that sense, employees want the process to last a long time. Of course, for an employer it is the outcome that matters, and if they're interested in benefits to the employee it is mostly because that improves speed of arriving at future outcomes, making the process shorter for employees. That's the dichotomy of employment.

Now that I've learned this, I can see the benefits of the 'gig economy' for those a generation or so behind me. Work when funds are low, and take off and live life fully in between (zero-hours contracts are both blessing and curse, then) makes complete sense. On that model, 'retirement' defined as 'not working' is completely outmoded. The danger of course is how to function if/when one becomes completely unable to work. Some individuals are probably already there, but not the bulk. For society as a whole that problem is perhaps around half a generation away.

MrDoppleGanger
Posts: 12
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:21 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby MrDoppleGanger » November 6th, 2016, 11:47 am

TedSwippet wrote:
TheRIT wrote:I'm starting to see more and more bloggers who talk about FIRE but in the context of a concept where 'work' overlaps with 'life' because it's not 9 to 5, not 40 hours per work and is something that is 'part of the person'. I'm yet to form an opinion on whether this is FIRE as I don't want to be a Unicorn, Victim or Aggressive. I'd therefore value others views on this.


[interesting stuff snipped out for clarity]

Now that I've learned this, I can see the benefits of the 'gig economy' for those a generation or so behind me. Work when funds are low, and take off and live life fully in between (zero-hours contracts are both blessing and curse, then) makes complete sense. On that model, 'retirement' defined as 'not working' is completely outmoded. The danger of course is how to function if/when one becomes completely unable to work. Some individuals are probably already there, but not the bulk. For society as a whole that problem is perhaps around half a generation away.


I (myself) struggle with the Gig Economy idea. I don't see what my USP would be in the young mans industry I'm in - I.T. Perhaps contacts, perhaps reputation, but there will always be someone smarter, quicker and cheaper than me. I can't help seeing it as anything other than a race to the bottom. Definitely not something I'd want to rely on.

TedSwippet
Posts: 43
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:57 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TedSwippet » November 6th, 2016, 12:23 pm

MrDoppleGanger wrote:I (myself) struggle with the Gig Economy idea. I don't see what my USP would be in the young mans industry I'm in - I.T. Perhaps contacts, perhaps reputation, but there will always be someone smarter, quicker and cheaper than me. I can't help seeing it as anything other than a race to the bottom. Definitely not something I'd want to rely on.

Yeah, I think gig economy works best if your gig requires physical proximity, some close cultural connection, an extremely particular skill set, or similar. If it doesn't, or if you lack these, it might be a struggle. From what I can see one would need some seriously niche IT skills to compete at topcoder.com. I have 35 years of IT behind me, and yet like you I would probably run screaming from this.

It's interesting, though, to ponder why I would find this so threatening. Can I really not compete among the younger IT crowd? Tech is an area where temporary or recent knowledge capital is more valuable than long term experience. Sometimes vastly more so, to the point where experience is a drawback rather than an asset. Contrast with law, say, where experience really counts. So maybe yes, I really could not survive topcoder.com.

I'm not sure this logic extends to the entire gig economy, though. Of course, I only have experience of profession, and it's this one, so from here it's hard to judge how widespread this phenomenon would be. And youngsters can probably more easily shift than oldies into different parts of the gig economy, if that's what is needed to survive and thrive.

TheRIT
Lemon Pip
Posts: 76
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:44 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TheRIT » November 6th, 2016, 12:30 pm

MrDoppleGanger wrote:... It's not as if you can't adjust it should you find you've more capital than you need. Better that than the alternative ..

This is going to be the interesting bit in FIRE for me. If worst case events occur then we live the intentional life planned. If average or best case occurs then average capital over the subsequent cycles is going to grow allowing a potential increase in spending. The interesting bit will be do we ramp our standard of living (given our approach is based on quality of life) or is a fairly large inheritance going to appear. I'd hope it's the later and we can stay intentional but I've very conscious we're also human.

TheRIT
Lemon Pip
Posts: 76
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:44 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TheRIT » November 6th, 2016, 12:39 pm

TedSwippet wrote:I struggle with this too. I reached FI about five years ago, and RE earlier this year. Followed a somewhat traditional route -- employee with stable salary throughout -- but with a decade working abroad plus a lucky bit of a leg-up from stock options. I'm now of the opinion that RE for me personally is 'not working for money'.
...

Great post. In the world of work today at the grand old age of 44 I'm probably getting towards old timer status plus am probably a bit stuck in my ways. My aim though going forwards is to try and understand it as I might be able to use some of it myself. Even if I can't I can at least better understand others views.

In the interests of full disclosure from where I sit today my definition of RE is similar but subtly different to yours. For me personally it's work is optional.

TheRIT
Lemon Pip
Posts: 76
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:44 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TheRIT » November 6th, 2016, 12:41 pm

MrDoppleGanger wrote:I (myself) struggle with the Gig Economy idea. I don't see what my USP would be in the young mans industry I'm in - I.T. Perhaps contacts, perhaps reputation, but there will always be someone smarter, quicker and cheaper than me. I can't help seeing it as anything other than a race to the bottom. Definitely not something I'd want to rely on.

For my the big problem I saw was cheaper, more competitive and in a different less acceptable to me country. It's one of the reasons I chose the FIRE as a back-up.

Degsy67
Posts: 12
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:32 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby Degsy67 » November 6th, 2016, 1:29 pm

TheRIT wrote:On the topic of plans a few top level thoughts:
- In the blogging world particularly I see a lot of people either FIRE'ing or planning to FIRE based on following the 4% Rule blindly which effectively means 25 times annual spending. My view is that is an incredibly dangerous assumption and people need to educate themselves on what the 4% Rule is before jumping in with both feet. For example it is US based with the US being one of the best performing global markets in history, it's based on a 30 year retirement with many FIRE'ees possibly being retired for far longer than that, etc


I see this comment a lot regarding the 4% rule being based on US research and I'm also aware of the follow on research which looks at safe withdrawal rates for a number of other countries including the UK which suggests that the safe withdrawal rate is much lower than 4%. With the advent of Pension Freedoms I can see that these boards will be an extremely useful source of debate around this in the years to come.

There are a number of flaws with the academic research. It is often over simplified in terms of the methodology applied - e.g. ignoring the impact of fees and ignoring different equity vs fixed income asset allocation models associated with retirement portfolios. Academic research typically doesn't consider a number of practical and pragmatic aspects such as operating a cash reserve to smooth out the bumps in the road.

When I try to think this through with my own FIRE planning, I take some solace from the fact that UK large cap equites (e.g. those we typically see in HYP portfolios, income focused UK ITs and Dividend Aristocrat style ETFs) typically distribute more in dividends compared with US equities. It's a feature of the UK market.

Alongside my real world FIRE portfolios I model a fantasy income portfolio. At the end of each year I take the total value of my various real world FIRE portfolios (SIPPs plus ISAs) and then imagine I'd cashed all of these in (taking into account the cost of doing this) and purchased a range of income generating assets (ITs and ETFs) which I would be happy to hold. I then take a look at the forecast yield of this portfolio. This has been marginally above 4% for my two previous iterations and I'm hoping the same will be true when I run a third iteration this coming January. I also check back for the previous year to see the extent to which the previous fantasy portfolios actually generated their forecast income and what happened to the capital value as well as the income generated compared to inflation.

Based upon the above, I'm still using 4% so far as my rough and ready rule of thumb to help calculate how far off I am from FIRE. As I get closer to achieving this however, I suspect I'll start to look much more closely at safety margin as well as other more complicated drawdown models which may give me a sense of the extent to which I could consider drawdown of capital to fund one off purchases such as cars and holidays as and when investment returns are more positive during the early stage of our retirement when we are hopefully more active and able to enjoy the benefits more.

Having a very simple model focuses the mind on saving. As achieving the number gets closer and closer and is then eventually surpassed, I think the question in my mind will switch significantly to risk. If I press the button and jack in my job or downshift in some way because I believe I'm now financially independent then how much risk am I taking? Have I miscalculated? Have I got a sufficient safety net in place or should I carry on as I am for a few more years just to get more comfortable? I can see that it will become quite difficult for me to actually take the plunge unless other factors play a hand.

I understand that there is no guarantee that UK yields will generate 4%+ of income however it's also worth remembering the mathematical link between capital value and yield. Yelds typically go down when capital values go up (barring major economic crises). In other words, I may not be able to generate 4% from my FIRE portfolios however where this is the case it is likely to be because the capital value of my portfolios have pushed ahead a little more than I would typically experience. The same is true in reverse, if my portfolio bombs in the year before I'm planning on retiring then hopefully yields will have increased so that my capital can still generate an income which is adequate as I'll be buying more income in exchange for the reduction in capital.

By way of example, let's say in 'normal times' £1,000 of capital can generate £40 of annual income (4%). At the end of the year I look at my income generating model to find that I can only achieve a yield of 3% but I note that the capital value of my real world portfolios have done particularly well during the course of the previous year. In fact, using the unitised value of my portfolios, £1,000 of capital has risen during the course of the year to now be worth £1,200. If I apply the 3% yield to the £1,200 then it generates £40 of annual income.

I realise that this is a made up example and that the real world doesn't work like this in practice. It's worthwhile remembering however the simple fact that yields go down as capital values go up.

There have been recent articles noting that there are concerns around the sustainability of FTSE dividends this year which readers need to be aware of...

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-3506437/How-solid-FTSE-100-dividends-2016.html

The following article is worthwhile which looks at the sideways movement of the FTSE over the past 20 years with some interesting graphs including a FTSE100 CAPE graph which is worth noting...

https://www.ukvalueinvestor.com/2016/06/ftse-100-valuation.html

The following article includes an interesting long term yield graph for the FTSE100 showing an average yield over time of around 3.5%. In my experience investors can add around 0.5% by focusing on higher yielding companies, income ITs or Aristocrate ETFs...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares/11175486/The-FTSE-100-in-four-key-graphs.html


Although imperfect, a simple x% rule (whatever you decide to substitute for x) is a good way to provide focus in my opinion during the accumulation stage.

Degsy

TedSwippet
Posts: 43
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:57 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby TedSwippet » November 6th, 2016, 1:31 pm

TheRIT wrote:... my definition of RE is similar but subtly different to yours. For me personally it's work is optional.

I would call that the FI part more than the RE one. That's probably just me splitting hairs, though...!

TheRIT wrote:For my the big problem I saw was cheaper, more competitive and in a different less acceptable to me country. It's one of the reasons I chose the FIRE as a back-up.

I wonder if FIRE is more popular among IT workers in particular than the populace in general? And if it is, whether that's because this profession is now much more rife with 'ageism' (for want of a better term) than others?

When I started in IT, it was extremely rare to see anyone retire. We were all in our twenties because at that time virtually nobody over 35 had any concept of computers. Fast forward 35 years and oddly, it's still rare to hear of people retiring from IT. Mostly it's a move to "consultancy", marketing, sales, management, or some other vaguely allied but less coal-facing role. Even the oldies in the profession tend to spend their time working on 'mature' technologies.

I have been both a compiler/linker and an OS kernel engineer, and here is where any over-40s are most likely to be found. This stuff is hard -- the development tools are generally horrible, no quick code-and-test cycles here, and errors can be massively costly. And with little or no user-facing component it's just invisible -- and therefore, to management, mere detail. Younger folk will mostly want to spend time writing whizz-bang Javascript or CSS for quick visual gratification and swift cloud rollout. Instant happy customers, kudos and bonuses all round, then! Grinding out an improved lexical analyser or a more efficient OS threading library is just not sexy. Worst case; loss of millions of pounds through small error. Best case; nobody (perhaps apart from benchmarkers) notices you changed anything. Not a great risk-reward equation there, then.

Can roles for grizzled engineers be found in the new gig economy, then?

My suspicion (based on no research at all!) is no. The culprit here is probably free software, so called FOSS. Very high quality OSes and compilers can now be obtained entirely without cost. Support can be cheap to free. Often even media are supplied for "free" (ad supported, perhaps).

You don't see lawyers or accountants giving away their services, so what prompts IT engineers to do this?

Maybe like athletes we can fall prey to seeing ourselves as defined by what we do, not what we are? Or maybe FOSS is mostly developed by burned out IT cases who are already FIREd?!

tieresias
Posts: 29
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:25 pm

Re: FIRE

Postby tieresias » November 6th, 2016, 5:18 pm

TheRIT wrote:
TedSwippet wrote:I struggle with this too. I reached FI about five years ago, and RE earlier this year. Followed a somewhat traditional route -- employee with stable salary throughout -- but with a decade working abroad plus a lucky bit of a leg-up from stock options. I'm now of the opinion that RE for me personally is 'not working for money'.
...

Great post. In the world of work today at the grand old age of 44 I'm probably getting towards old timer status plus am probably a bit stuck in my ways. My aim though going forwards is to try and understand it as I might be able to use some of it myself. Even if I can't I can at least better understand others views.

In the interests of full disclosure from where I sit today my definition of RE is similar but subtly different to yours. For me personally it's work is optional.


I agree with both definitions, i.e. "not working for money" and also "work is optional". My concern is about what follows, i.e. purpose.


Return to “Retirement Investing (inc FIRE)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests