These days when I’m curious about the consensus of thoughts in the world, I take to Twitter. The origin of one of my latest Twitter polls was someone recommending me as a “Lean FIRE” account to follow a few months ago. And to be honest, despite being grateful for the recommendation, that rubbed me the wrong way – and I wanted to investigate why 🙂 .
I started thinking about my response. First I separated out my frustration with labels in general and then realized: I have some things to say about the evolving (and in my opinion incorrect) definition of “Lean FIRE” and “Fat FIRE” as well as concerns about their very existence. So let’s get into it!
First, let me just say that ascribing human weight terms to financial situations is fucked up. Using “Lean FIRE” to imply you don’t have enough, as in fat on your body, and using “Fat FIRE” to imply you have too much (weight), is frankly bullshit and not even how weight works (don’t make me go on an endocrinology tangent – it will take forever…though maybe I’ll do it one day just to get it off my chest 😉 ).
So setting aside that I think using these terms perpetuate incorrect body stereotypes and fat shaming, I have issues with the current definition of these terms. But first, let’s see if y’all think they’re helpful and what you think they actually mean:
Do you find the terms 'Lean' FIRE and 'Fat' FIRE useful? I'm genuinely curious🤔. Feel free to say why/why not below.
— A Purple Life (@APurpleLifeBlog) May 1, 2021
I'm going down the rabbit hole of curiosity so here's another question for y'all👀🤔. How do you define 'lean' FIRE?
— A Purple Life (@APurpleLifeBlog) May 1, 2021
Misconceptions
I am not a historian, but below is what I learned these terms meant when I first joined the FIRE community. If anyone has documentation about where these terms came from and the creators’ original intent, I’m all ears, but this is what I learned the terms meant and what makes the most sense to me:
“Lean FIRE” = Saved less than 25x annual expenses (aka can’t cover all expenses, usually discretionary spending is removed)
FIRE = Saved 25x annual expenses
“Fat FIRE” = Saved more than 25x annual expenses (so you have a withdrawal rate of less than 3% and saved more than you ‘need’ based on the general 4% rule of thumb for a 30 year retirement)
That’s what I thought these terms meant, but somehow the definitions have morphed into a specific dollar amount in some circles. For example, I’ve seen infographics that state that people who spend less than $20K/year per person or $40K/year per couple are “Lean FIRE” and people who spend $50K/year per person or $100K/year per couple are “Fat FIRE.”
Are These Terms Useful?
Personally, I don’t find these labels helpful because everyone’s spending is their own – personal finance is personal – and on top of that, we all live in different locations, which have wildly different costs of living.
I found it super interesting to see people’s comments under these polls on Twitter because some were trying to add mathematical qualifiers to the ‘straight dollar amount’ “Lean” and “Fat FIRE” people, to adjust for cost of living (which is totally valid and makes a little more sense). However, to me, that just adds more complexity to something that (I assume) is supposed to make things more clear. I don’t think that a more convoluted way of expressing these terms is as helpful as the original definition I learned.
Am I “Lean FIRE”?
So then I turned the magnifying glass back on myself based on the various definitions of these terms that are floating around the net and realized: I don’t fit any of the popular definitions of “Lean FIRE.” I saved more than 25x my annual expenses. My expenses were $18,000 living in Seattle and $18,000 x 25 = $450,000 while I retired with $500,000 invested and $40,000 in cash.
I also don’t fit the spending amount definition because my retirement budget is $20,000+ per year with no spending ceiling. I built into my plan that I can spend more than $20,000 in up market years and later in retirement if I so wish or need. So I’ve identified my frustration outside of my dislike of labels and putting people in boxes: I’m being put in the wrong box! Woe is me am I right 😉 ?
In my mind, I am just “FIRE”. I have more than enough to cover all my expenses when I lived in the middle of a metropolis and way more than I need while living in random places around the world as a global nomad. And I am planning to spend more than the arbitrary amounts that have now been placed on these terms.
I also personally do not find these terms useful because of the additional work they require to be used as comparison for cost of living if your definition is based on spending. I don’t think there should be a qualifier for if you spend less or more than other people think you should.
Conclusion
So did I just go on a thousand word rant because people keep incorrectly putting a label on me? Yes – yes I did. I’m only human 🙂 . I already have a weird relationship with labels in general, but putting me in the wrong box in a way that adds incorrect caveats to my FI journey apparently grinds my gears 😉 .
I achieved financial independence – just straight up FIRE. My life is full of luxuries and I am in “Fuck It” Money Mode. My life is not ‘lean’ in any sense of the word (though can we get rid of these weight based terms please…Thanks so much 🙂 ). Phew – ok! /end rant.
How do you define “lean” and “fat” FIRE? Do you find those classifications useful?
I think loose categories can be helpful just for clarifying a person’s approach to FIRE, goals, and lifestyle. Mr. Money Mustache lives very differently than others. But you make an interesting point–most of us are just living our lives the way we want to live and feel like we have the perfect balance, regardless of what our actual spending numbers look like. And I bet most of us think we fall somewhere in the middle, just like most people think they’re middle class. So yeah, maybe those kinds of categories are best for just the folks out there who are deliberately trying to be on one extreme or the other, with the rest of us just all lumped together somewhere in the middle.
Personally I would prefer we just talk about people’s approach since there is so much confusion around these terms – I would imagine it would even take a similar amount of time 🙂 . Agreed that our perception of ‘normal’ or ‘middle class’ can be very skewed from reality. At times I think people’s blog names properly explain where they are on the spectrum like Early Retirement Extreme or Physician on FIRE, but really I just like seeing the nitty gritty 🙂 .
I don’t get the dollar amount definitions either. That’s just as bad as the experts who use retirement rules of thumb based on income, not expenses. Was probably introduced by those who felt bad about their high levels of spending so labelled their situation as ‘Fat’ when it isn’t.
Always has and always will be a multiple of expenses.
Your rant is perfectly justified.
That is a great comparison! So true. And I am indeed curious what the origin is – I hope I find out one day. Thank you!
I agree. No need to put labels on people’s FIRE pursuit, or subcategorize their FIRE goal. But, just for fun… can someone label me:
I am going to reach my goal of $500,000 in 7 years. I’ll be 47 then. But I don’t plan to retire or quit my part-time job as a college counselor, I just want to have $500k on my 403b and then stop contributing and use the extra money to travel, hang out with people, and pursue some passion projects. As a part-time worker (20 hrs/week), I am still able to pay my bills and have extra spending money. So I intend keep working 20 hrs/week until I retire at 62… to the Philippines!!!! By then that $500k will be close to a million. In the Philippines, I’d live like a King.
Am I actually pursuing FIRE? Or just FI without the RE? What’s my kind of FIRE? Does this even make sense? Hahahaha…
All I know is that Purple, you inspired me and I enjoy reading your blog, lol, but maybe I’m not doing FIRE?
Since I have a problem with labels in general I won’t place one on you, but if anyone else in the comments wants to chime in feel free 🙂 . You are just pursuing your dream life in my eyes. And I’m so happy to hear you inspired you – thank you so much for telling me 🙂 !
Yeah, Kent, I’d say you’re pursuing FI, which is by far the more important part of FIRE 🙂
There are a number of early retirees that get bored and wind up doing money-making activities after their “retirement” anyway.
I had never seen Lean FIRE defined as a savings multiple before, or indeed as a specific dollar amount. I had always seen them as *relative* terms based on scale of lifestyle expenditure.
On that basis, as you don’t have a house, or a car, or spend significant sums on luxuries (clothes, designer handbags, throwing parties, going to 5* luxury hotels/resorts etc.), you’d fall into the Lean FIRE category. I’d always classified you as Lean FIRE (sorry!).
Having said all that, I agree the labels are not that useful – at the end of the day who cares? What counts is whether you’re happy with your life or not…
That’s interesting. I would point out an issue in the definition of me though – I do throw parties and stay in 5 star hotels/villas etc 🙂 . I see a hole in there lol. I also don’t really see why we would need relative definitions like that especially if they’re based on what others count as ‘normal expenses’ (that’s what I took from your list of things I don’t have). I’m with you though – who cares? I just wanted to get this off my chest before getting back to my busy nap schedule 😉 .
For me I’ve always thought of them as a bit less well-defined (although I have mainly seen people defining it in dollar terms, which makes no sense to me as what’s tight for one person would be more than enough for another). ‘Lean’ I think of as being able to retire but things being tight (have to watch your spend carefully, no luxuries), whereas FatFire is having more than enough, so you can splurge and spend on luxuries without worrying.
I wouldn’t say you’re LeanFire because, although you spend a lot less than some people, it’s more than enough for you and that’s what matters.
I actually quite like the term FatFire, as it’s viewing fat in a good way, like you can never have too much of a good thing 😉
Hmm I keep hearing this – maybe I should have included something like ‘it’s relative’ or ‘self-defined’ to my poll because by your definition yeah I’m definitely not Lean FIRE and would be Fat FIRE in my mind. I don’t even look at money before I spend it, have way more than enough and buy whatever I want (what I think of as luxuries included 🙂 ). It’s fascinating hearing what other people’s definitions are – thank you 🙂 !
And that’s an interesting other way to view “Fat FIRE” 🙂 .
As is often the case you made me see this differently. I never really thought about how ridiculous those terms are, but you are right. After pondering this a little I think if Fat fire is a thing then I’d say its a feeling. If you feel, most of the time, that you have ample money to do what you want in life then I’d say you have it. Maybe ample fire is a better descriptor than fat. And if you have enough, which you and I do, then having more becomes totally unimportant. On the other hand if someone is getting by OK but is constantly worried they might not have enough money, then I’d call that lean. Even if they have ten million dollars, if they live with money anxiety they are poorer than you and me. I wouldn’t even call that post a rant, I’d call it thought provoking!
That’s so awesome to hear I helped you see something else differently! And that’s really interesting – I’m seeing a theme in the comments that it’s how you think or feel about your money instead of what you buy necessarily or how much you spend. We have a third definition haha! And thank you for rebranding my rant – I’ll take it 🙂 .
I agree, Steveark! Which of these categories you fall into is probably more of a feeling than anything–and I also agree that Purple encourages new perspectives. She has that kind of gift 😉
I always associated “lean fire” with still having to work part time to pay bills. I definitely wouldn’t have thought you were lean fire by any means. Maybe the new names can be “campfire” to replace lean, and Bon Fire to replace fat.
I understand that to be Coast FIRE. In some cases, Barista FIRE (though that is more specifically tied to needing to work for health benefits)
Thank you!
Yeah I’m with LeanFIRE Aspiring – that’s what I always heard was CoastFIRE (and we can debate about that as well if you’d like haha) while Lean FIRE/FIRE/Fat FIRE includes actually having quit your main profession whereas in CoastFIRE you’re still working and the FIRE portion means you can retire fine at traditional retirement age. But once again, I’m not sure that’s how everyone defines it and that makes me think these definitions are not very useful 🙂 . I do like the names CampFIRE and BonFIRE though because they’re cute haha!
CampFIRE, FIRE, and bonFIRE–I like it! That’s very creative!
I hadn’t made the connection between lean/fat FIRE and body weights. Maybe it’s the context, but in FIRE terms, I saw them as fairly neutral descriptions. It’s money after all, not the fitness and diet industry. But there are definite positive and negative cultural associations with those words in terms of body weight. If we were talking body goals, there’d be side-eye from me!
I’m with you on keeping these things simple and resisting complication where possible. If you (general you) want to spend 20k or 200k a year in retirement, make the calculation accordingly and that’s your retirement number. If it covers minimum planned spending or extra/luxury spending, that’s on you. For me, it makes no sense for my FIRE number to cover a bare minimum – mine has extra room for spending. That’s just FIRE, you know?
If people find these terms useful to describe what they’re trying to achieve, then fine (I guess). In general, I dislike this tendency to label every micro difference in experience or concept. Labels are only helpful up to a point. IDK. Like you say, it’s all relative. It’s called personal finance for a reason.
It’s possible I’m sensitive on the subject, but I am suspicious of how these terms (and body weight assumptions) have crept into other topics. It all seems to feed into the incorrect and hurtful stereotypes we have.
100%! It makes no sense to me to not have my projected budget and therefore my FIRE number to cover everything I will ever want in this life 🙂 . And that’s a great way to say it “Labels are only helpful up to a point.” To me if they’re causing additional debate and confusion instead of providing clarity they are not helpful. I’m with you!
Very interesting!
I agree that using money amounts it’s not ideal, coming from Latin America where 10k a year (in USD) is a lot of money, those numbers throw everything out of wack.
I love your blog btw, it’s one of the most realistic and easy to read that I found.
Another great example! And thank you so much for your kind words 🙂 .
people can keep their labels or use them as an enema for all i’m concerned. i never even wanted to part of some “movement” like fire, even though we employ many of the principles useful in finding financial freedom. part of independence is not being much of a joiner.
with regards to the terms you mention, i did a little back of the napkin calculation in 2019 for our expenses. for a our family of 2 with a paid off house and 2 paid off cars (zero debt) i broke the expenses into 3 categories. back then it cost us about 16k just to exist as we were: house tax/maint., utilities, insurance, food, minimal clothing. then i added common but not necessary add on’s which were not “absolutely necessary”: ongoing car costs, tv, cell phone, internet came to about 7k. then i added the luxuries we enjoy like wine, pet costs, and some travel for about another 16k. none of these were or are optimized for cost. so if we were lean we would spend just the first 16k. regular would include the next 7, and fat would include the last 16k with we won’t go without unless some emergency arises like global nuclear war. if you saw our 40k life back then you would say we buy/do whatever we like and i felt we lived like royalty. i’m sure those numbers are quite a bit higher a couple of years later (more like 45-50k) but that’s not bad for a quality life.
Hahaha the enema comment is another Freddy classic – I love it. And I’m not part of movement either personally. Community, sure – but not movement. Thanks so much for breaking this down – that’s an interesting approach to all of it!
While I don’t use this lingo myself and I don’t see the specific number as useful, I do think there is a value in differentiation to some relative degree.
Honestly the fire community has a broad basis. We have those that essentially quit to work a lower paying job, those that don’t have to work again but have to remain frugal, and those who are not frugal but turned high income jobs into high income retirements. The message for each of these has relevancy to different people.
I suspect little of your story would apply to a doctor with a retirement plan of spending 120k a year. Conversely there story wouldn’t give a lot of relevant advice to you. Conversely you probably wouldn’t find much relevant tips from someone with less then 25x who quit their job to retire to working at Starbucks or freelancing. Note none of above speaks to whether you enjoy reading their blog…. It just means if you are looking for inspiration in a certain situation having someone nearer to your life tends to be more relevant.
Interesting! I guess in my head I would find it more helpful to hear “I’m a doctor who retired and now consults” vs “I’m FatFIRE” – and it barely takes more time especially since I believe the latter would have follow up questions.
I also don’t really agree that my story would not apply to a high spending doctor – I don’t usually talk about things specific to my number here (besides providing them for context). I try to go into the human aspects of retiring, such as sleeping, eating, creativity etc that’s universal. And I totally do find stories like the one you mentioned helpful because I’m curious how other people live especially ones with different approaches to myself to broaden my horizons and options. I might be a weirdo, but I don’t think I find seeing someone exactly like me that helpful – though maybe that’s because I haven’t found anyone like that yet 🙂 .
Putting myself in your shoes, I could see how you’d be frustrated with the designations (being put into a box that doesn’t define you). I don’t view you to be Lean FIRE – you seem to have supported your lifestyle with your investments without additional sacrifices (which is FIRE to me). However, your FI number would be very lean for most people. And that’s just kudos for you to figuring out how to live your best life for less.
I don’t agree with the numerical assignments of lean and fat FIRE, but as someone on the journey, having different levels of financial freedom is helpful and motivating. For example, if we cut back on certain splurges and downsized, we could FIRE right now… but it would be a leaner lifestyle than we’d prefer so we call it Lean FIRE. There is no one size fits all in the FIRE movement, so agree that people need to stop trying to create that mold. Everyone’s targets should be based on their spending levels and perceived value or sacrifice required to hit those spending levels. The beauty of this movement is that everyone can define their own journey.
All so true 🙂 . I guess a good example of classifications I find helpful are “DINK” etc – it stands for one specific thing and it shortens an explanation as a label should.
I don’t use these labels, but I kind of see the point.
Lean FIRE – You might have to struggle a bit after retirement. Might have to work occasionally.
Fat FIRE – You’re set. More money than you ever need.
I don’t think a specific amount is very useful. You’re living pretty luxuriously, not lean at all.
Housing is the big drag. You can spend more because you don’t have to worry about a house.
You’re ahead of the curve as usual Joe 🙂 . And that’s interesting with your definitions because I see any early retirement as being in the first “Lean FIRE” category because our retirement length is so long that (in my mind) more things could happen, such as a giant medical expense of a family member, that could cause us to have to return to work for a time. I can’t imagine an easily achieved amount of money given America’s healthcare situation that would be classified as more money than anyone would ever need (though maybe I’m just not thinking big enough 😉 ) .
We don’t care about these labels or find them particular useful. There is so much context and nuance to every FIRE situation, it renders them pretty much meaningless (to us).
Yup! Label-less for the win 🙂 . I completely agree.
Hi Purple. I don’t like these labels either. I had to turn off the Reddit Fatfire stream because it was full of posts from a bunch of assholes (to use the American phrase), gloating about how rich they were.
Totally agree, let’s just stick to FIRE.
Oh no! Sorry the assholes were running amok. May I ask what the UK version of that word is (and does it start with a “c” 😉 )? And yep – let’s do it!
In British English we say arseh*le! So not the same as a donkey. And a real emphasis on that “r”.
Also I do have a more constructive comment but I don’t know if I can top this today 🙂
I like the way ChooseFI covers the concept of Lean Fire. They tend to describe it as a milestone along the way towards FI rather than a goal. A stage where you have enough saved that you could get by if you quit your job today, but you would have to cut out all your non-necessary expenses. Something a little less than 25x your annual expenses. This can be a good mile marker if one has to or wants to shift careers. A good episode to hear their take is episode 324 “The Stages and Checkpoints of FI”.
Based on that definition you are certainly FI and not Lean FI. That said, I also do not like the terms fat and lean fire. As a community we should come up with something better. Maybe NearFI and BeyondFI would make more sense.
I haven’t heard it described as a stage of FIRE before the actual one – interesting! Sounds like yet another twist on the definition I understood 😉 . And love the suggestions if we want to keep these kinds of definitions around!
I always looked at these terms the same as you did. I think it’s silly to slap on label on specific dollar amounts. It doesn’t account well for different cost-of-living locations and adds confusion to things.
I look at as… if you’ve saved up enough to cover your normal expenses without needing to pinch additional pennies, then you’re regular FIRE. If you need to cut back a lot to make things work, you’re Lean FIRE. And if you’re a baller and don’t really need to think about money at all to buy or do what you want, then you’re Fat FIRE.
I think dollar-wise, we’d fall in the regular FIRE group, but I would consider us to be that regardless of what the specific dollar amount was since all our expenses are covered without much in the way of concessions.
Exactly 🙂 . Thanks for sharing your perspective Jim!
Jim – Agreed, this is the way I’ve heard it described in the past. Not real specific, just kind of based on lifestyle, which is very non-specific.
Purple, I agree with you whole heartedly and this has been bugging me too. The FIRE concepts are all about savings rates and X times expenses, that was the whole beauty of the FIRE math back in the day. It didn’t matter how many dollars you earn, it was all about saving 25x your expenses to be FI.
When people started describing Lean FIRE as less than 1 million saved was when the original messages started being diluted. I get the value of different flavors of FI, but at a certain point it can take away from the core messages.
You hit the nail on the head right here!
Purple I agree with your definition in general but ultimately it is how you see your own situation.
You are beyond satisfied with your lifestyle so you must be on the “high end” of FIRE.
The definitions are helpful in terms of milestones. LEAN fire (enough to cover all basic needs) is an important milestone for me as it would give me a sense of freedom even if I continue working.
My personal goal is COAST FIRE and my definition is you have enough saved in your account that you can retire at age 65 without adding anything.
For example: You save $200K by age 30 then stop adding. You can coast to age 65 and have $1.5M by then. From age 30 to age 65 you only have to make half your salary.
As opposed to what I think BARISTA FIRE is: you can retire now but have to work a barista-type job forever unless you add more to your retirement account.
So the difference with COAST FIRE is you start drawing say half your living expenses from your retirement account then half as a barista at any age.
Feel free to debate this but I think the difference between COAST and BARISTA is that you don’t withdraw on COAST unitl age 65. On BARISTA, you draw money now to live on then supplement with a BARISTA-type job.
Totally fair and I’m glad they’re helpful for you! Thanks for explaining all that.
As many others have mentioned, I think it’s a relative classification. And it’s unfortunate you jump to negative connotation. I highly doubt most people look at these terms as negative. Is “lean manufacturing” a bad thing because it has lean in the name? Also, “fat” can be good when it comes to food (and appearance). There’s no such thing as a perfect analogy or classification system. But we wouldn’t survive and thrive without trying to label things. And in most cases, it’s good to assume positive intent 🙂 If you focus too much on the potential negatives, you’re sure to find more of them… whether they exist of not. And these actions and emotions can compound around you as well.
I don’t use the labels myself but if you had to be in a category, you’d be fat FIRE in my eyes, what with your travelling, living the life of Riley, not worrying about your FIRE funds, or having to get more income.
It’s just FIRE in the end, your personal one which would be different from someone else’s.
I recently saw someone refer to them as ‘fat’, ‘semi’ and ‘skimmed’, which I found amusing, though still unlikely to use!
I agree 😉 . But yeah I’m fine with doing away with these labels all together as I think they cause more confusion than clarification. Those other terms are amusing though!
I dislike all the labels. I think it unnecessarily divides people and it generalizes their unique journey and story. Being put in a box is frustrating, especially if the box you’re in doesn’t represent all facets of your personality. Being financially independent should be from your lifestyle. Lean, fat, etc isn’t it.
I’m with you dude 🙂 . Thank you for articulating what I was trying to say so well. Especially with finance it’s all specific cases and no two are the same so trying to apply labels in this way can cause more confusion than clarification (I said that in a comment above and love it so much I had to say it twice 😉 ).
Would terms minimal FI for less than 25X expenses and abundant FI for over 25X make more sense? Or do you need a higher number like 30X to be abundant FI?
I don’t think so personally. They say similar things and don’t clarify a situation enough to be useful. I vote for just having people explain their situation to avoid confusion and varying definitions of these specific terms.
I honestly never thought of it this way. I got into FIRE cult pretty late and thought leanFire is more where you aren’t spending on luxuries.
However I now think that Baristafire,coastfire, leanFire etc could be stages. People can decide to choose their targets.
As a person of size, the weight related terms do make me cringe a bit, although not enough to get overly annoyed about. I actually prefer the term HI-fire – as in high income fire (from Aussie HIFIRE) – to fat fire. I suppose then the other end of the scale would be LI-fire. Or maybe Lo-fire to make it roll off the tongue a bit better.
Ultimately though, dollar amounts on these brackets, if we look at them that way, is a bit pointless because $20k a year might be plenty for some but just scraping by for others. Add to that the effects on inflation over the long time periods we’re looking at, and a dollar figure is a bit meaningless because most of the time we’re only thinking in terms of what those dollars can buy today. I’m inclined to think that a multiple in relation to what those levels of spending look like for the individual is more accurate.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and those terms are interesting! And I agree 🙂 .
Labels can be helpful for people to make sure they plan properly instead of just winging retirement. Based on what you just wrote, it sounds to me like you actually might fall into “Fat FIRE” or “Ample FIRE” as someone else suggested. But precisely, your retirement spending is -supposed- to be different from your working spending, so you don’t fit neatly into one label.
It was smart to project wanting to spend more in retirement, mainly because healthcare costs can go up quite easily as you get older. Unfortunately, increased healthcare spending is a reality as we age in the US, and also something that’s hard to picture and plan for if you’re very healthy or under 50.
Completely agree 🙂 . And yep planning for healthcare and increased spending seems to be very important given the current situation in the US.
Whenever I have mentioned the amount you have retired on, there was usually one, maybe two, glaring commonalities in the people that said it was a impossible.
The first is that Americans tend to absolutely refuse to acknowledge how much car ownership costs. Due to a stupid set up of public transit in my neighborhood, I have to drive to work. (for the MM fans, I can’t ride a bike, and if I could, I’d never take it to work cause it’s freaking dangerous.) For this, I have a 13-year-old car that’s been paid off for years. I still have to put 200 or more a month away in an account for rando and expected expenses. Add most of my rural friends’ insistence on newer, larger vehicles and they absolutely refuse to think that they are likely spending 500-700 a month on them. They never count gas, depreciation, repair or anything else, just the car payment.
A few years ago, I could actually walk to work and mused about getting rid of my car. Family members asked me how bad my situation was and offered help. UGH
The other is vanity/laziness. They’d rather hit that Amazon button then check to see if they already own it, really need it, or can get it elsewhere for free or cheap. I’ve actually had people tell me that life would not be worth living if they had to “think about it,” and that they don’t want people to think they are poor.
I’ve actually had fallings out with family members who think I must have inherited more money because I live in a large city and take international trips. One of these relatives buys every Consumer Reports “don’t buy” vehicle, owns at least two or three, and spends, as I can figure, about 150 a week at Pizza Hut.
When I said that life wouldn’t be worth living to me if I had to exist on Pizza Hut, the conversation didn’t go well:-)
Everyone needs to “do you” but refusing to realize there is another way to both FI and happiness is just setting yourself up for disaster. I keep my mouth shut these days, but when people with a six-figure income moan that they will “never retire” it drives me a little bonkers.
A neighbor just asked me if I knew a way to get their cable bill lower than 260 a month. Sigh.
Sounds like you’ve got the beginnings of a sociological study right here 😉 . Very interesting! Completely agree on car ownership – it’s totally required in some parts of our country, but not all like some of my friends say, and there are of course ways to make it cheaper like you’ve mentioned.
I think the conventional definitions of lean vs fat are reasonable. We could easily use different terms, how about ‘stingyFIRE’ vs ‘spendthriftFIRE’? 😉
As I get older I’m starting to realize that there are expenses I gladly accept now that simply weren’t relevant when I and my friends were a decade younger. My friends recently had a baby and despite very good insurance, had to cover some significant medical bills out of pocket. My aging dogs have been through many thousands of dollars worth of end of life surgeries in the last six months. Other peers spend porsche money on fertility treatment, or breast cancer in their forties, or special needs children.
These might technically be discretionary expenses, but far from luxury expenses the way folks usually think of them. In fact, I’m beginning to theorize that the real distinction between the middle class and the upper class is not tangible lifestyle (nice car, big house) but resilience: being wealthy simply opens the doors to options that don’t exist otherwise. Expensive orthodontia. Eye surgery. IVF. House fires. Any sort of emergency mitigation is far easier when money is no barrier.
With these ruminations present, I’m tend to think of ‘lean’ FI as basic/normal living expenses covered. ‘Fat’ FI is closer to investments providing similar withdrawal as your income previously – giving you the same buffer to life’s unexpected hardships as while working.
And as such, while I’m quite FI by ‘lean’ standards (and twice as well off from my original ‘lean’ goal from just a few years ago) I’m very happily continuing to accumulate assets. My seven figure portfolio provides a massive buffer against a lot of risks. Quitting my job and living off said portfolio would introduce a budget far less tolerant of big expenses.
Finally, given how much my thoughts on priorities have shifted from my very early thirties when I started planning FI to my current mid-thirties, I’m more than a little nervous about how mid-forties me will judge my current self!
Cheers Purple, I appreciate your story.
I can’t wait until I reach ANY FIRE, Learn or Fat 🙂
Lol fair
LEAN FIRE – attained fire supporting annual expenses typical of lower or lower-middle class (Ie. early retirement extreme)
FIRE – attained fire supporting expenses typical of middle class (MMM)
FAT FIRE – attained fire supporting expenses of upper class (the doctor fire dude)
Lean fire bloggers and forums often focus on frugality and the saving money side of the equation.
Fat fire bloggers and forums often focus on the income and investment side of the equation.
While both perspectives are valuable, I’ve found the labels helpful as I’m at fire supporting $150k/yr income and the advice in the fat fire blogs and forums is more relevant at times. If I had a friend looking to fire with an income of $20k/yr.
When I was in military training, we would have more than one instructor because sometimes a certain phrasing or skill technique would click for a student when others hadn’t – IOW, the exposure to more than one approach helped ensure that everyone would hear/see something that helped them learn. I see FIRE the same way – the more approaches you are exposed to, the more likely one of them will click for you. Lean/Fat FIRE was a helpful tool for me when I first encountered it because it explicitly states that there is more than one way to do FIRE – not just 25x expenses. Somehow I never thought of the Lean/Fat dichotomy as relating to weight or fatmisia – I thought it was a reference to Six Sigma/Lean Six Sigma management techniques, wherein “Lean Six Sigma is used to reduce process defects and waste.” Thus, I thought Lean FIRE meant reducing all waste until you only had pure essential expenses, but Fat FIRE meant paying less attention to expenses/inefficiencies – building more capital rather than reducing expenses. However, I see your point that it could be interpreted as reinforcing negative body stereotypes.
Another tool, which I have found far more helpful, is J.D. Roth’s Stages of Financial Freedom [https://www.getrichslowly.org/stages-of-financial-freedom/]. While it does not have specific dollar amounts attached, it delineates financial agency/milestones more helpfully than any other tool I’ve found so far. According to this guideline, I am somewhere in the Independence/Abundance range (Stage 5/Stage 6), and I suspect you are too.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Thanks for starting the conversation.
Interesting! Thank you for explaining your perspective. I’ve never heard of Lean Six Sigma either. And I like these stages! Thanks for sharing.