I think many people in this thread need to consider if that really is the game they want to be playing. I'd think people would be better off maximizing their total happiness. There's research showing that having good memories from the past positively affects momentary happiness in the present [1]. With that in mind, it seems like spending money on great experiences now is a good idea, while excessive saving could be counter productive.
[1]: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%...
MMM/ERE [1][2] are not about maximizing money at all. They are about obtaining only a sufficient level of capital, so that they are no longer obligated to work for income to continue living happily. The numerical value of "sufficient" gets lower as your expenses decrease.
>I'd think people would be better off maximizing their total happiness.
Based on your comments, to you, happiness comes from experiences which require money, which is perfectly fine. Therefore, MMM and ERE are not for you, which again is perfectly fine.
For others who find happiness in experiences requiring little to no funds, MMM/ERE is an exceptional strategy. I would love to spend my days coding, studying chess, reading books, cooking, mentoring youth, and spending time with the small group of people I am close with (I'm rather introverted).
I knew a guy who wanted to get into freelancing but wouldn't do it because his expenses were too high.
There's happiness, but there's also planning and self control.
I'm on track to retire in my thirties, or earlier, here in North Carolina. Not hard at all on a mechanical engineer salary.
It all depends on what you define as 'comfortably' and how well you are able to control your spending on things you don't strictly need. That way you can build up some capital, make that work for you and relax your spending constraints when you are making more money passively.
not adjusting your employee's wages based on their work location, which company is that delusional?
it is about fairness among workers. there should be no penalty for living close to the HQ or major office hubs, which practically always are in high-cost areas.
counter-example being SAP with Waldorf, but that is ending its lifespan for the inverse reason (no one sane wants to move there).
Granted, Heath issues, dependents, or debt can make this a non starter. But, just because most people you work with spend most of what they make every month means you need to do the same.
100k / (1 - (0.28[1] + 0.093[2])) = 159,489.
Plus if you retire, you're going to be managing your own health insurance, so the required living expenses number increases, probably by thousands of dollars a year. And it's not like you can flip from a frugal living style to a more flagrant one afterward, so you're going to have to live with room mates for the rest of your life, and never eat out, still.
[1] http://federal-tax-brackets.net/2014-federal-tax-brackets.ht...
More importantly the goal is not necessarily full retirement. Plenty of things are entertaining and make some money. Perhaps you only make 5k/year as a writer or painter well on its own that might not mean much but it can easily boost your nest egg over the next 20 years. Or perhaps teach a class at the local collage or even some of those short training classes. Not to mention long shot’s like trying your hand at acting.
PS: Your expenses often rise as you age but even just working 10 years entitles you to some Social Security benefits.
How about C) Move to a different state? If the goal is to do this in California, then yes, it's probably not possible.
As an example, to live off $35k/year in SF as a single person (which would be considered modest in tech circles), you'd need to earn $175k/year.
With a family, this gets more unrealistic. Living off $100k/year (combined) would require earning something like $500k/year.