Huge fan of your high quality substack. You are FIRE, please dont dilute your articles with these heavy sponsored post wealthfront, IMO 3300$ is not worth it. Altering the writing to accommodate the sponsor is not a good idea especially when you are FIRE. Just a suggestion from another FIRE guy. Keep up the high quality as unbiased, I got excited about this blog after jlcollins and MMM. Thank you
Agree completely with "I want my enough number to reflect the lifestyle I want to be living." I retired from the tech grind about a year and a half ago; looking back, I essentially ran the inverse of your boundary test. Instead of testing how far spending could go before it stopped adding value, I tested how far cutting could go before it started costing me anything. In my first week retired, I found $17,786 in annual recurring savings: insurance, subscriptions, contractual obligations, etc. None of this touched my actual day-to-day life. I've kept finding more since. That headroom is what gave me the opportunity to spend on what actually matters, which is the same experiment you're describing, just run from the other direction. Two questions: does the frugality boundary test stop once you FIRE, or do you keep hunting for zero-impact savings in retirement too? And have you run the mirror-image test yourself — how far you could cut before it actually costs you something — the same way you're running the spend-more test now?
Huge fan of your high quality substack. You are FIRE, please dont dilute your articles with these heavy sponsored post wealthfront, IMO 3300$ is not worth it. Altering the writing to accommodate the sponsor is not a good idea especially when you are FIRE. Just a suggestion from another FIRE guy. Keep up the high quality as unbiased, I got excited about this blog after jlcollins and MMM. Thank you
Good stuff here! Appreciated the note on who this post is and *isnt* for. Loved reading through
Agree completely with "I want my enough number to reflect the lifestyle I want to be living." I retired from the tech grind about a year and a half ago; looking back, I essentially ran the inverse of your boundary test. Instead of testing how far spending could go before it stopped adding value, I tested how far cutting could go before it started costing me anything. In my first week retired, I found $17,786 in annual recurring savings: insurance, subscriptions, contractual obligations, etc. None of this touched my actual day-to-day life. I've kept finding more since. That headroom is what gave me the opportunity to spend on what actually matters, which is the same experiment you're describing, just run from the other direction. Two questions: does the frugality boundary test stop once you FIRE, or do you keep hunting for zero-impact savings in retirement too? And have you run the mirror-image test yourself — how far you could cut before it actually costs you something — the same way you're running the spend-more test now?