# Retirement and Financial Independence, do you have enough money?



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

When someone notable dies we read an obitiuary in a newspaper like the New York Times. No doubt there will be one when Bill Gates or Warren Buffett dies. But how does someone who only earned $6k a year come to 'rate' an obituary in the New York Times?

Joe Dominguez died in 1997 at the age of 58, from cancer. On this forum which is dedicated to money and this sub-forum which is dedicated to retirement and how money fits in, Joe Dominguez would have probably had a lot to say about the question of 'do I have enough money yet?' His answer 99% of the time would probably have been, yes you do.

It's somewhat ironic that he died at age 58 since he valued time more than he valued money. In a way, his early death validated what he espoused. Time is what matters, not money. It kind of puts into perspective just how foolish we can be when we consider retirement and money. People here spend time putting numbers into formulas that purport to tell them if they have enough money to retire and whether it will be enough to last them till age 95 if they live that long. In reality, it's all crystal ball gazing. We don't get to plan when we will die. If you knew you were due to die at age 72 or 62, how would it change your planning?

But here's the difference between the average poster here wondering if they 'have enough' and Joe Dominguez. Even though he died at age 58, he enjoyed 27 years of financial independence before he died. How many years do you think the average person retiring at 65 enjoys? The answer is around 15 for a man and 19 for a woman, in Canada. So he managed nearly double the time an average Canadian male can hope for. Yet, he only made $6k a year and that was enough. He retired at age 31. 

What 'rated' Joe Dominguez an obituary in the NY Times was the book he wrote explaining his take on financial independence, time and money and the influence that had on many people. The book is 'Your Money or Your Life. He wrote it in 1992. It is not a typical 'how to achieve financial independence' book at all. It is more than that.

Here is his NY Times (1997)obituary: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/27/us/joe-dominguez-58-championed-a-simple-and-frugal-life-style.html

Here is a fairly comprehensive review of his book: http://www.thesimpledollar.com/review-your-money-or-your-life/

At the time his book was published I was just a couple of years into my own early retirement, having had my 'eureka moment' in 1982 when one day I asked myself what I was doing with my life. Did I want to work till I was 65; retire; play golf; and drop dead on the 8th hole at age 67? Was the well paying job I was doing, what I wanted my life to be about?

My answers to those questions was no and so I decided that I needed to achieve financial independence. Not so that I could sit back and do nothing, but so that I could do whatever I wanted to do with my time. I came up with a 10 year plan to achieve that and reached my goal in 7 years, 3 years ahead of schedule. Once an over-achiever, always an over-achiever. I am now in my 26th year of financial independence.

When I eventually read Your Money or Your Life a few years later, I realized that he had found a way to explain to people what I hadn't even been able to explain to myself but that I had done anyway. I would suggest to anyone that they read it. 

So do you already have enough? The answer is that you probably do. Anyone posting here and therefore interested in retirement and financial independence could do worse than take the time to read it. You may not buy in to everything he has to say but it will give you an alternative view on the whole question of 'how much is enough' and may provide you some food for thought.

If I had to sum up his message in one sentence, I would quote what a friend of mine said to me a few years after I retired. I had been living elsewhere for several years and returned to my home town for a visit. I arranged to have lunch with a friend and after discussing what I had been doing for the last few years and what he had been doing, he remarked that I seemed to be really enjoying life. Then he said, 'I'm so busy 'living the life', I have no time to have a life.'


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

The average non-smoking 65 year old Canadian male is going to live until 87 - average life expectancy. I am not sure whether you were implying that he had 15 years of 'good' life and the rest was bad. 'Your Money or Your Life' didn't really resonate with me but I still 'retired' at 53. As you said, not to just quit and lay around but to be able to do the things that I really find enjoyable. DW tells me that I made the right decision!


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

Great post. Thanks for recommending the book. I'd heard of it, but had not read it. I'm tracking down a copy from my local library now. It's certainly true that how much money you need is entirely determined by how much you spend. Some people are content with a frugal lifestyle and for others there will never be enough money. I quit working at 55 on the earliest date I could get my pension. That was 10 years ago, and I have never regretted that decision. 

I have more than enough money coming in now to live comfortably, but that has always been the case, for my entire life, because I lived within my means.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

There is a new edition of the book from 2008. I've read both but can't really remember whether the original was significantly better than the update. Obviously the new book didn't have anything new from Mr. Dominguez but the central messages were the same.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I've skimmed through the book but want to read it again. 

Also great comment OldPro.

I only hope I can save and invest wisely enough like most CMFers, like pwm, to do what he did: done at 55.


----------



## Ihatetaxes (May 5, 2010)

So this guy lived 27 years on $500/month? He must have wore out a lot of his friends couches or else he was living in a tent.


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

As I said, not everything in it may appeal to everyone but it should give everyone something to consider when it comes to chasing the dollar or thinking about how much is enough. 

I don't try to live on $6k either but do know that we all need far less than we think we do.

Ihatetaxes, why don't you read the book before you try to comment.


----------



## bds (Aug 13, 2013)

Thanks for the post, I hadn't heard of the book but it sounds right up my alley.

I'm currently downsizing my life to re-evaluate what I need vs want and am planning to take a few months off to experiment with frugality to see what I can get by on. It'll be a vacation/practice retirement.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I admit i didn't read the book and maybe it explains it but how did he mange!?
6k a yr is way below the poverty level(in the 90's)
I have read a ton of articles over the years about poverty how hard it is(challenges no person would wish for)
I don't know what 6k a yr(in the 90's)equates to in today s $ but i know it would be damn hard to make it on 24k yr(as a single)
If it was easy and 'do-able' our federal government wouldn't spend millions and millions funding the welfare system
I kinda find articles like this offensive,i have worked with(hired/day labour)Men who earn under 25k a yr and let me tell you the life they lead is not pretty!!!It's damn sad and distrubing-nothing 'romantic' and enlightening about it....damn hard to do in our modern society in a major capital city in canada.


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

Donald, first of all, the $6k (or today's equivalent) is more about proving a point than about suggesting anyone else should try to do that. Think of it as a theoretical minimum that only the rare person would ever actually want to strive for. Don't get hung up on it.

Look at all the posts here by people looking to achieve FI and retire and see what numbers they are talking about needing to have. The suggestion being made is that most could in fact manage on less than they think they need. If you read the book, you will see that Dominguez doesn't say 'do without' anything. Although some people do interpret it that way. What he says is ask yourself if the number of hours I have to spend working to get this is worth my time. 

So for example, he isn't advocating that you do without a flush toilet. He is however advocating that when you go to buy a toilet you look at whether a toilet that equals 8 hours of your life spent working will do or do you need one worth 80 hours of your life spent working. I use this example because we just happen to have bought a new toilet recently and believe me bigger differences than 8 to 80 are out there.

When people are looking at 'do I have enough' they often make assumptions based on present conditions. Why wouldn't they, it's what they know. However, in retirement things are different than they are if you are working still. There is a very applicable saying which is, 'you can't see there from here.' Simply meaning your perspective on things is based on your current reality. Until you retire you cannot see things from that perspective. If you use Dominguez's tool of starting to look at time vs. money, it gives you a different perspective to look from which is much closer to the perspective you will have when retired.

If you go through the steps outlined in the book to determine what a week of work actually earns you, you will probably be quite surprised by what you discover that number is. How much is your time worth? If you spend 5 minutes at the gas pumps once a week; 25 minutes twice a day commutting to/from work; 2 hours a year reviewing your car insurance; 2 hours every 3 months taking your car to be serviced; etc. etc. how much is that time worth? If you think you are netting $X a n hour working, then using that same $X an hour you can answer how much all that time is worth. Deduct that amount from your income. If you do that for all the time you spend doing things related to working only then will you know how much you are really earning when you work. There is no shortcut way to find out without going through the steps in the book. But you can take my word for it that it is less than you think. Having done that, then ask yourself about that toilet again. Is it worth 2 weeks of work to buy one? Or could you use that 2 weeks of your life to do something more fulfilling than owning an expensive toilet?

Time is one thing you cannot bank. You have a limited amount of it and it decreases every day. Try this. Uptoolate says the average non-smoker can expect to live to 87. Go get a tape measure and lay out 87 inches on the floor. Now put your finger on the inch that equals your current age. Now look at how much you have left. When we talk about time, aging and dying, it tends to be pretty fuzzy. This exercise gives you a very graphic way of looking at it. You can see it and what's more you can even touch it. Most people posting here who look at where they are on that scale won't be too thrilled with what they see.

Time is also funny in that while it is a constant in real terms, it changes with age. Ask any 70+ year old about time and how fast the years are beginng to go by. Trust me, time accelerates as you grow older. The older you become, the more valuable time becomes to you. Ask a 75 year old how much having retired 5 years earlier would be worth to them now. That's when they realize that waiting till they had enough to afford a $200k class A motorhome for winters in Florida vs. a $40k used 5th wheel for winters in Florida was not a good trade of time for money.

On a side note, that takes us back to it not being about doing without and living on $6k in a shack somewhere. No one is saying that if you feel you need to wintter in Florida in retirement that you have to give that up. If you interpret Dominguez's message correctly, what he was saying is that you decide what you need but also decide how much of your time (spent working) you are willing to pay for it. Is it worth working another 3 years before retiring or will what working only 1 more year buy you be good enough if you then gain 2 years to spend doing something more fulfilling than chasing money? If I wanted winters in Florida, I'd take retiring 2 years earlier and spending the winters in a used motorhome over working those 2 more years.

I heard on the news just yesterday that the average detached home in Toronto is now $1Mil and the average Condo is $250k. http://www.thestar.com/business/rea...onto-detached-home-shoots-past-1-million.html
You mention donald, "damn hard to do in our modern society in a major capital city in canada." Sounds like you are right. The question is, why would you assume anyone had to do it in a major city?

Some people really feel they need to live in a city. If that is the case, then looking at the Toronto numbers, the answer obviously is to look at how many years of life spent working a detatched house will cost you vs. how many years it would cost if you were satisfied living in a condo. Four times as many years. But I personally, am not happy to live in a condo. So I look at it another way. Why would I have to live in a city? I think of cities (I grew up in Toronto) as where people live because they have to to work. It's where the majority of big buck jobs all are. But if you look around, what you discover is that many people earning the real big bucks want a 'home in the country' and commute to the city. Well in retirement, you can live wherever you want. You don't have to live in the city or even within an hour commutting distance to the city.

I live in a beautiful little town (3000 pop.) in Southwestern Ontario. It's in what is actually called the 'banana belt'. Torontonians generally don't even know it exists.(Google it) We bought a 3 bedroom ranch style home on a third of an acre here, 5 years ago for under $200k. I assure you, most people would be happy to live in it. But don't take my word for it, just go to the MLS map and look at properties for sale from Windsor to London along Lake Erie, south of the 401. The best climate in Ontario and the best value for money in homes. Why would anyone want to settle for less in the city? 

Don't ask how did Dominguez do it on $6k donald. Ask yourself what do you need to be happy and how much income will you need for that if you are willing to be a little bit more flexible and not make assumptions about what really matters.


----------



## el oro (Jun 16, 2009)

Here is how one blogger has lived on $5k to $7k for the past ~10 years. 'Your Money or Your Life' is one of his top two fave personal finance books.

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-year.html
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/frequently-asked-questions


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

The big issue I see when people are preparing their retirement savings plan, is they ask themselves how much income they want to have in retirement, without any serious consideration of the costs associated with that goal. By costs, I mean what OldPro is alluding to...how much longer will a person need to work to obtain the nest egg to provide the required income.

If there is no costs factored into this, but simply some arbitrary number to pay for a dream, then why wouldn't a person keep adding and adding more income to their requirement. The more the merrier.

But as OldPro has indicated, and anyone with common sense should know, but most don't, there is a cost to that retirement income. The more you want, the more you need to sacrifice now to save it, and/or the longer it takes to grow the capital required. While that is growing, you are most likely still working.

I always tell my friends that there are two ways to help you in paying for your retirement. You can either earn money and save a larger percentage of it, to come up with the very large amount of money to pay for the retirement of your dreams...or you can cut back on your so called retirement needs. For the very early retirements, a big combination of both is the best way to achieve it.

To add to this, if you can reduce your monthly expenses by $1,000 a month, that is a completely tax free way to help your retirement plan along. If, however, you need another $1,000 a month, then not only do you need to earn taxable money to save for this extra $1,000, but it is very likely that you will also need something like $1,500 per month, so that by the time you pay your taxes in retirement, you have $1,000 left over for yourself. This is not nearly as tax efficient.

The bottom line here, is for most Canadians, if they simply write down a bucket wish list of all the things they want to have and want to do in retirement and then add up the ridiculous cost of most of those worthless wishes, by the time they pay their current expenses and their income taxes, the little they will have left to put away, probably ensures they will be long past the age of 70 before they ever achieve their retirement goal.

Compared to retiring at age 55, I call that cost "15 years, hard labour with no option of parole, take him away". Now, I spent most of my life trying to avoid, someone on a bench saying that to me, so I am certainly not going to integrate that into my retirement planning.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

Hi:

I own and have read this book. It challenges one to understand how many hours one works to earn a dollar and then evaluate whether a purchase is worth x hours of your life instead of thinking in terms of it worth y dollars. I think this in general is a useful exercise. Most people spend money however they spend it without really sitting back and evaluating if they are getting any true value. The ideas in this book are but a suggested tool to test for value.

My guess is that if the average person really sat down and thought about how they live their life and spend their money, whey would live and spend much differently. This book is a challenge to run the thought experiment and see where it takes you.

hboy43


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I completely understand what you are saying Oldpro!
Even at the young?age of 35 the tape measure exercise is uncomfortable(i guess i am 40% already)
I had a polarizing incident last april(30th)I was on a jobsite with a employee of mine(which makes it even more dramatic on multiple levels)that fell(25 yrs young)
He had a life threatening accident from the fall and lived but as a result became paralyzed from the neck down(it was only he and i onsite and i was the one to call 911,he almost died in my arms)

Through the fog and the resulting numb 'shock' I went through(still going through in a business sense and personal)It puts things in perspective big TIME!!!
That was the first time in my 35 yrs on earth i realized how delicate and fragile life is

I am going off topic a bit but for mths after(and now)I compare my 'problems'(they aren't problems)to his and it makes me ashamed(worried about the price of enbridge or something ridiculous like that,or other business problems)It is a joke and pathetic.

BUT being human it is so hard to think in terms of today and measuring things in time etc
I wish i wasn't so preoccupied with $ because i do know deep down the focus is not in the right place but i guess that is the trick of life(damn hard to be content with your present 'lot')I don't know where i am going with this and i might be drifting off topic but i understand what you are saying
Easier said than done.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm with Ihatetaxes and Donald on this one. The thread is titled, _'Retirement and Financial Independence, do you have enough money?'_ and starts by twice mentioning that Joe earned/made only $6k a year.
I recognize the comments that 'this is not the point' but it is fair to ask (without reading the book) how someone could live on $500/mo and genuinely look after all of their living, food and personal needs. The quality of life provided by $500/mo in retirement would be not be acceptable (if it was achievable) by the vastest majority of us in North America.
Personally, I found the idea of costing out everything on an hourly equivalent basis cumbersome. For considering what you really need to live and for living frugality with FI, I found 'Mr Money Mustache's' discussions to be more accessable.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People are a lot older when starting out in life these days as well.

The years of earnings between leaving school, getting meaningful employment, gathering the necessary furniture and assets, getting married, buying a home.........leaves precious few years to accumulate wealth for retirement.

DB pension plans that were the norm at the workplace, allowed people to build their lives without a concern for saving for retirement.

The opposite trend lines of part time low income jobs and well paid full time jobs compounds the problem and stagnant wages is an additional drag on savings.

Add in the paying back of student debt, and it isn't surprising that many people are in their 60s with little saved for retirement.

I have little doubt that people will be forced to settle for less in retirement. That change is already firmly in place and well underway.

Stock markets can't be counted on to produce the returns that would be needed to combat the headwinds coming from all directions.

Living on less in retirement...........for a large percentage of the population, won't occur in a vacuum.

There will be a significant negative impact on business, stocks, and the general economy as well.

Changes that may be implemented, from pooled pension plans to an enhanced CPP, are running out of time to be effective for many future retirees.


----------



## Ihatetaxes (May 5, 2010)

OldPro said:


> Donald, first of all, the $6k (or today's equivalent) is more about proving a point than about suggesting anyone else should try to do that. Think of it as a theoretical minimum that only the rare person would ever actually want to strive for. Don't get hung up on it.
> 
> Look at all the posts here by people looking to achieve FI and retire and see what numbers they are talking about needing to have. The suggestion being made is that most could in fact manage on less than they think they need. If you read the book, you will see that Dominguez doesn't say 'do without' anything. Although some people do interpret it that way. What he says is ask yourself if the number of hours I have to spend working to get this is worth my time.
> 
> ...


I think you used up half an inch on that tape measure writing this response. :biggrin:


----------



## el oro (Jun 16, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion, see my post above (#11) for an example of someone choosing to live happily on that amount (~ $6K/yr).

@sags - Furniture, assets, marriage, buying a home - none of these are necessary. You have the choice to accumulate/experience everything in your life, or not to. Each thing you decide to add to your bucket of assets/experiences comes at a cost, which you can measure in dollars or time (worked). It's the people that understand this that can choose to retire decades earlier than average.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

It's an interesting perspective on retirement. I gather the intent is to be frugal where it matters, don't waste money on things that don't really add to your happiness in life. So don't buy a $500 toilet when a new $10 stopper fixes the problem, don't buy an giant SUV when an cheap sub-compact does the job, etc, etc. So generally these things make sense, well, unless you spend a huge amount of time on the toilet.

Just to add a slight twist to the Joe Dominguez types of the world, and of course if possible, why not get a job doing something you enjoy, maybe even something you plan to do when retired?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm in tune with thinking carefully about what really is important and what you really need for retirement, and when you want to go. And don't throw away money unnecessarily. To that extent (and without reading the book) I agree people may not need as much as they think, and retiring earlier is also my choice. 

However living on 6K for most of your life or some other extreme situation just because you don't want to work a little longer doesn't cut it with me. We live in retirement on about 35% inflation adjusted of what we made in our peak earning years. It's enough to give us what is important to us after careful thinking and allowed us a little earlier retirement. We could find the cheapest of everything and give up lots, to have retired at say at 40, but we're interested in a more balanced approach. It wasn't torture to work and besides gives you satisfaction in other ways. And there will likely be many more years to enjoy in retirement, health willing.

I would never bother with all those tedious steps or likewise even some of the cheapskate stuff in MMM. For some people who may be less disciplined with their money, or who hate working, or those without more clear goals the exercise might be beneficial.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

and costing out everything "in hours worked" is not that difficult. If you earn $30 per hour (many don't) and you are in a 33% marginal tax rate, you earn $20 after tax.

If something comes up that you want to buy that costs $200, that means you would have to work 10 hours to pay for it. I do this math all the time. Some things I want and I am glad to work 10 hours for it, and most other things, once put into the context of working another 10 hours doing whatever I do for whomever I don't care to do it for, makes the idea of that expenditure vanish quite quickly.

I think everyone should think of their expenses this way, at least until they are financially independent and don't have to work to acquire anything, anymore. Until then, that is the cost of the items you buy.

Not doing this math would be like buying something, without asking the price, and just handing over your credit card to the cashier and letting them charge you whatever they like.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> and costing out everything "in hours worked" is not that difficult. If you earn $30 per hour (many don't) and you are in a 33% marginal tax rate, you earn $20 after tax.
> 
> If something comes up that you want to buy that costs $200, that means you would have to work 10 hours to pay for it. I do this math all the time. Some things I want and I am glad to work 10 hours for it, and most other things, once put into the context of working another 10 hours doing whatever I do for whomever I don't care to do it for, makes the idea of that expenditure vanish quite quickly.
> 
> ...


I also agree with doing this mentally when making purchases, and thinking along those lines. This could be highly beneficial to those who carry a regular credit card balance or line of credit for common purchases. To me it's common sense and was learned at earlier age when I would work to save for specific things I wanted. ie how many more hours of work would it take to buy that bicycle.


----------



## bds (Aug 13, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> and costing out everything "in hours worked" is not that difficult. If you earn $30 per hour (many don't) and you are in a 33% marginal tax rate, you earn $20 after tax.
> 
> If something comes up that you want to buy that costs $200, that means you would have to work 10 hours to pay for it. I do this math all the time. Some things I want and I am glad to work 10 hours for it, and most other things, once put into the context of working another 10 hours doing whatever I do for whomever I don't care to do it for, makes the idea of that expenditure vanish quite quickly.
> 
> ...


I think of it a little differently than that even. To work those hours you still have to pay for other things during that time (housing, food, etc).

Assume you need to work 10hrs to pay for that $200 thing you want to buy. Let's say it costs you $2000/mo to live (rent, food, transportation, bills, etc). That's $2000/160 hrs (40hrs/wk * 4 wks) = $12.50 per hour in expenses.

After 10hrs @ $20/hr you have $200, minus living expenses of $125 ($12.50/hr * 10hrs) you've actually only "made" $75.

By that math you're only _really_ making $7.50/hr, which means that $200 item will actually require ~27 hours of work.

Is over 3 days of your life really worth that $200 thing?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> OnlyMyOpinion, see my post above (#11) for an example of someone choosing to live happily on that amount (~ $6K/yr).


Thanks, I had checked out your interesting links. What I saw was $540/mo total for rent including utilities by living in an RV in San Francisco, $100/month total for car (presumably insurance, gas and upkeep?), and $3.33/day for food (not sure of menu). I am still certain the vast majority would find this way of 'living happily' for most of their life to be neither acceptable nor achievable. Even Thoreau only spent 2yrs at Walden Pond.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I remember reading the book while I just started univeristy, and thinking 'dear lord I better get a good job that pays a lot and learn to enjoy my work' because his lifestyle actually turned me off of being frugal. Seriously, I was quite a spender in my younger days. I thought I don't want to live like that at all, and why couldn't someone like what they do also they don't feel like they are giving up their life. 

However, I take away the book, that you need to think about how much time you are giving. To be honest, when I was young, I didn't mind giving up my time for stuff. Also, it was unfortunate that I started making pretty decent money right out of school, that the time factor seemed less. Now, that I am older, I have learned the lesson is about time and money can be used quite interchangeably but time cannot be banked. I have learned that to maximum the benefits I receive for my time or money, I need to be effiecent and effective with both. I think the book is a good start of a lesson with that.

I have a different twist on the lesson is make as much money as you can per hour, so the trade off is less, enjoy your work or learn to be positive about it, so it really doesn't feel like a trade off, be efficient with your time, do things that you don't like faster, OR I actually trade my money for things that take me too much time but no enjoyment . I see people spend so much time do thing they hate but yet can hire some for less than their own time. For example I HATE HATE cleaning, it actually makes me angry and I feel unproductive. It literally takes me at least 12 hours to clean! Well maybe longer, because I have given up by then, I can hire some for about $100 to clean my whole house, and they will do it better than me. This works out to about $9 / hour saving. I get paid a lot more than $9 and hour. That job now gets outsourced, and my 12 hours is well worth being spent on things I love and no yelling at my family because I am grouchy. 

All this takes the most important lesson of know what matters to you.


----------



## OldPro (Feb 25, 2015)

Some interesting comments, some still missing the mark.

The title asks 'do you have enough?' It doesn't ask would you like to live on $6k per year. Some can't seem to get past that. Why would you focus on one thing you don't like and at the same time ignore examples of it not being about that? 

Hboy, yes it is a tool to test for value. What’s more, bds has got it right in figuring out how much you really earn vs. OpstyOwl’s $20 an hour. When it is costing you $12.50 an hour while earning that $20, you are really only earning $7.50/hour.:frown:

Donald, life changing experiences such as you experienced often cause people to revaluate what is important in life. I guess we can’t really say though that it is unfortunate that more people don’t get to experience such things. Their only hope is to perhaps read something that causes them to think about things more. That’s why I suggested reading the book.

OnlyMyOpinion, the book is not about working out how much you need to live. It is about learning to value your time more than you value money. The book has very little at all to say about how you should spend your money or how much you will need, it only gives some anecdotal evidence and examples of how you might need less than you think. My example of winters in Florida is the same thing. Spend winters there if that is what you want but do you need to work another 2 years before retiring, just to buy a more expensive RV? That’s what the book tries to get people to think about.

Ihatetaxes, I actually know how to type. What might take you a signifigant amount of time (but not a half inch on your tape measure of life hopefully) is not something you should assume takes someone else just as long. I can type just about as fast as my mind can formulate the sentences. :biggrin:

$1600 Gold, please don’t fall for the red herring of getting into a debate over whether someone can live happily on $7k a year or not. It’s irrelevant. The question is as I realize you understand, can they live on less than they currently think they can. It is as you say about making choices in what you add to the bucket.

RBull, forget the $6k per year. No one is suggesting that anyone should try doing that. Everyone is free to decide how much they need. All that was suggested was that reading the book might change some thinking on that. 

You are already retired RBull, it can’t really help you unless you are having a problem managing on what you have. If that were the case then I would say, yes, read the book you might still learn something useful. But if as it seems you are managing fine on your income then there is no need. Leave it for those it can help and it is not just, “some people who may be less disciplined with their money, or who hate working, or those without more clear goals” at all. It can help anyone who is thinking about FI no matter how disciplined they are or how clear their goals are. That’s the whole point. They can learn to discipline based on time and to have goals that may differ considerably from what they currently have as their FI goals.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Actually the question 'do you have enough?' Is probably better than 'do you have enough money?'. While I commented above that 'Your Money or Your Life' didn't really resonate with me that's not to say that I didn't agree with the message. I just pulled out my copy of 'Enough' by Jack Bogle and I quite enjoyed it when I first read it. He includes the poem 'Joe Heller' by Kurt Vonnegut which I thought hit the mark. 

*Joe Heller*

True story, Word of Honor:
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
now dead,
and I were at a party given by a billionaire
on Shelter Island.

I said, "Joe, how does it make you feel
to know that our host only yesterday
may have made more money
than your novel 'Catch-22'
has earned in its entire history?"
And Joe said, "I've got something he can never have."
And I said, "What on earth could that be, Joe?"
And Joe said, "The knowledge that I've got enough."
Not bad! Rest in peace!"

—Kurt Vonnegut

The New Yorker, May 16th, 2005

It is very satisfying to get to that place no matter how much you wind up with. The best things in life are not things and we only have so much time in this place. 

Thanks for the initial post OldPro. An interesting conversation.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Fair enough OldPro. I'd rather leave it at that. You've read the book and I haven't.


----------

