On the off chance you haven't read it yet and might be inspired: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...

It's not an exciting way where you get to be in the newspapers as the latest billionaire, but it does work and has very low variance.

I understand what they're saying but I don't trust their math when they claim "simply cutting cable TV and a few lattes would instantly boost their savings to 15%." That implies that cable TV and a few lattes accounts for $2.5k of spending in a year.

$100/mo cable, 5 lattes/week before work at $5/latte… it’s not so far off (unless you decide to litigate the definition of “few” or the average post-tax price of coffee in Nebraska or whatever). It’s illustrative.

Do people still have $100/month cable plans that don't come bundled with Internet? Also, 5 lattes/week is more than a few lattes and $5 per latte is extremely expensive.

Assuming you don't live in a major US city? $5 latte's and $70+ just for Internet (forget cable) is pretty standard now.

Feel free to plug in different numbers of course, preferably numbers from your own life. The point of the article is not to get you pondering about the finances of this hypothetical family and how much they may or may not spend on cable and coffee, but to get you thinking about your own finances in the same way.

The thesis of that article is that early retirement is simple formula and isn't as complex as people make it out to be. When one of the examples they give to explain that claim is to just get rid of cable and a few lattes it makes me think that they don't actually know what they're talking about.

Firstly, very few people still have cable. Also, I don't know anyone who's spending $1200+ per year on coffee (and, $1200 per year is a lot more than just a "few lattes").

I actually somewhat agree with their formula but I don't like how they put it in a condescending way. It's like claiming that losing weight is as simple as having more calories out than calories in. Functionally that's true but it doesn't really help much.

Sadly unless there is some kind of universal ABI or born to rich parents, doing what we want especially in the way we want is not an option. Its wage slavery all across the world and no end in sight for any number of future generations.

Oh man, if you see it like that, is probably becoming true. In other industries or jobs it could b, but in tech? Companies are the ones looking for more developers, and if you made it to senior, you have a lot of power.

ABI or rich parents are the only options for you, it seems. Such a sad view. We don't need to be the next Bezos to avoid the wage slavery. We just need to be financially independent: some investments, maybe some flats for rent... in general, the principles of FIRE are possible for those who work in tech or engineering. It is a matter of making the effort to get there (and a bit of luck, of course). But if you start defeating yourself since the start, of course you will lose.

Also, working for a salary is not wage slavery in every case. In fact, working for money is the modern equivalent of spending the day wandering around for food or going to a 3 days' hunting trip with the fellow cavemen. What I mean is that no matter what, you have to get food and shelter to live, so either you work for it or someone else does. Which is essentially what ABI is. Until automation reaches full capabilities (if it does and Skynet doesn't kill us), you have to work to get food (and other services we want and need today) so try to find the best way for you to get that. Don't rely on others, they have no obligation with you and your desires.

If you’re in the tech industry, FIRE is an option closer than most. You can build your own tenure to pursue what you like.

Am curious, what is FIRE?

Financially independent retire early.