For me, rich is someone who does not need to work. Someone who can retire at any given moment.

When I was in my twenties, I used to think about getting enough money in order to retire young. Then I realized that I actually enjoy working and I don't see myself sitting on my ass doing nothing.

What I want is enough money to say no to work I don't really like, enough money for allowing me to choose what to do with more liberty.

Why do so many people view "retirement" as sitting on your ass doing nothing? It is a weird cultural stereotype, perhaps perpetuated to glorify work culture.

This is probably why the term "financial independence" was coined, to break away from this misconception.

Retirement/financial independence is not needing the paycheck anymore. It's owning all of your time to use how you want.

There are plenty of "retired" people that don't sit around on their ass all day. They've retired from the full time rat race but are very much active, doing what they want to do. It might even still sometimes look like "work", but it is on their terms.

Yes, "sitting on your ass" was not the best way to describe what I wanted to say. I don't want to use all my time to do only what I want, I also want to make something valuable for other people.

"FIRE" people do something valuable too, totally up to their choice. I think a good example would be like ashton kutcher creating thorn.

Sure but what's the path that ends with FIRE? If you're lucky you can maybe work on things you like, earn a good amount of money and then have enough to be financially independent.

But if you have to slog at boring jobs for a lot of years in order to accumulate that big pile of money allowing you to become FI you'll have to consider if it's worth it. Maybe after being FI you'll keep working but you'll have the privilege to choose only jobs or projects aligned with your needs and desires. If that's the case: is it worth it the years and years working at boring jobs? do you really need to be FI if you'll keep working after?

I'm not against having money on the bank, my approach is having enough to live several years without income, allowing me to reject things I really don't want. But I don't want to spend years just trying projects with no results, I want to do things valuable for other people and getting money in exchange is the way to be sure you're actually doing it.

> But if you have to slog at boring jobs for a lot of years in order to accumulate that big pile of money allowing you to become FI you'll have to consider if it's worth it.

It's not mutually exclusive.

> my approach is having enough to live several years without income, allowing me to reject things I really don't want.

This is what "FI" part means. the financial independence.

Yes, it's not mutually exclusive, that's the point. If you enjoy your day to day life and you are able to accumulate enough to be FI amazing, but I don't think it's worth it to spend several years at dreadful places in order to be FI in the future.

I understand financial independence as "having enough to retire without needing any more income", so the amount of money is not the same.

Why can't doing what you want also be valuable to other people? There are plenty of people who given financial freedom would want to start a business and even work harder on it than they did at their 9-5 job.

> Then I realized that I actually enjoy working and I don't see myself sitting on my ass doing nothing.

What happens when you're diagnosed with a serious, career-ending chronic disease?

Financial independence has nothing to do with having a relaxing retirement at a young age.

I wish I had realized this younger, for multiple reasons.

I realized in my twenties I hold my life too valuable to waste it sitting on my ass in an office doing bullshit work.

What do you do now?

Yearn for something better

Lol join the club

Honestly I never saw the appeal in this.

I call it the Disney princess effect - most of them are rich enough to not work, but they end up lost and drafted into things that are bigger than themselves. They end up working harder than anyone.

Maybe a rich person is someone who has enough that their priority is not personal wealth.

Also under that definition, developing nations are richer than developed nations, as developed nations have earlier retirement ages, shorter working hours, less debt, and more financial security.

It has to do with options. When you have fuck you money you have the option of refusing to do anything you disagree with.

The irony being many people get to that position by being workaholics that can’t stop.

I could conceivably retire if I moved to a low cost area, but I enjoy my lifestyle so will keep at it a bit longer.

> I could conceivably retire if I moved to a low cost area, but I enjoy my lifestyle so will keep at it a bit longer.

I am in a similar position but what keeps me from thinking about early retirement is not knowing what will be my financial needs in the future, and I'm concerned that I might not be fully aware of the role that luck played in getting a cushy life.

I guess key here is ‘can retire’. Personally I like working and cannot see myself retiring, ever, but I could’ve for quite a while already. I just have 100 ideas a day I want to build and have had that for well over 30 years now; why would I stop? Not to mention that almost everyone who I know who retired (rich or not) is bored and depressed...

Retirement doesn't have to mean sitting around doing nothing. It's the freedom of not needing the steady income of employment, and the freedom to do whatever you want.

Like work on those 100 ideas a day.

Exactly; strangely enough that is not quite how many people treat it. Well at least many I see.

In that case, a monk, a survivalist, or even a homeless person are rich.