Yeah, I know. Like Minneapolis, where I live. But I have discovered that to people who live on the coasts, its still Bumblefuck whether its Minneapolis, the lovely (really!) Davenport, Iowa or Casselton, ND. (And Casselton isn’t far from Fargo and Fargo has theatre that isn’t the high school’s Music Man - to get the touring company of Hadestown you’ll need to drive to Minneapolis, though )
Is that the case? I’ve heard plenty of horror stories about cost of living in places I would not have expected. E.g. I have friends who’s kid just got into UW in Madison WI (somewhere I’d not consider “bumblefuck” but I’d assume had a reasonable cost of living) and the cost of living is crazy, incredibly hard for students.
That might be a special case because of the university. It’s not uncommon for one particular town/village/city to be more popular ( and therefore more expensive ) than the surrounding area because of some particular attribute - maybe a campus or a hospital or because that’s where all the jobs are
Though my definition of “Bumblefuck” is somewhere out in the Midwest that doesn’t have a hospital, campus, or any other large source of employment.
Might not have been clear - I didn’t mean that Madison was Bumblefuck but that it’s possibly an exception to “most places aren’t Bumblefuck but still have a reasonable cost of living”
I don’t know that anyone ever thought houses outside LA/SF/NYC is “cheap”. At least in the suburbs of NYC you get enough space to actually raise a family.
I do know a few couples who moved out of NYC and bought massive properties and/or massive (like 10 BR) homes in places like rural North Carolina for the price of owning or renting a 2BR apartment in Manhattan.
The “getting a house in a remote area” ended up biting a lot of people in the ass. A lot of companies, particularly in finance, are forcing their employees to return to the office.
Also it drove up the prices in those areas for those that don’t have big salaries from tech companies, etc. they don’t have a good standard of living anymore.
One example of this is Reno (where I lived when I first moved to the States, and was dirt cheap back then) and has had its prices driven sky high tech people moving there from the bay area.
I disagree. I retired last year at 61. I’m a single woman, and for the last 10+ years I was putting 50% of my not-so-great income into retirement savings. For the last 20 years, I put my annual 3% raises into retirement, figuring if I lived on my previous income yesterday, I can do it today.
I worked first as a credit rep and for the last several years as a data analyst. By the time I retired I was making about $65K a year, and living on $30K. I own my small farm, no mortgage, no debt. I live in TN, which has no income tax. Besides my utilities, I have about $200 mo in property taxes and insurance. I have horses and dogs, and my hobbies are reading and beekeeping. I don’t travel, mostly because of the animals. I don’t care about clothes or cars. I live a frugal life, but it gives me everything I want.
StG
I’m not sure I agree with this and I can only talk about my own personal experiences. I would like it to be able to happen for me and I’m sure it’s possible but my own ideals drive me right now towards finding a career I will enjoy.
I’m still trying to get on the ball. I’m nearing the end of my undergraduate career here in my early 30s and I’m considering going and getting an unrelated RN track after this because I don’t mind the idea of being a perpetual student.
I’ve never had a lot of money in my life and while I believe it might be nice I don’t like the idea of having something nice to a degree it may be able to hamper me. I put in a dating profile the idea that I want to live fast and die old.
I want to keep my body and my mind sharp at the same time. I could still very well do that if I succeeded under a FIRE banner in my lifestyle and even better perhaps than I’m able to do now, but that’s perhaps not conducive to how I do things currently. I feel I don’t cope nearly well enough with the world as things stand right now to be able to make a gamble and throw everything into a wise investment.
Maybe when I get older but I need to concentrate on the right now. I got a phone call this morning and woke up way early and I’ve been kind of trying my best to avoid talking to people all day so maybe these last words I’m writing, here, are reflective of that.
What helped a lot in my case is that for a decade I was a poor graduate student, barely making enough from my stipend for living expenses. Then, right after I graduated, I got a job with (for me, at the time) a huge salary. But I didn’t change my lifestyle much — I didn’t know any better. So for years I saved a large portion of my salary. Basically until I met my wife and we started a family: That’s when my expenses shot up.
I was young when I started my family. I was 23 and my wife was 20. We were flat broke, and 4 years later we had our third kid and struggling to make ends meet. We lived meagerly because, right, there was no other way, but we were pushing through. I was able to retire a little early, at 61, because when I was 35 I had a decent paying job with 401k matching and I took full advantage of that.
It’s funny, but when the kids were young we had no money but we had all the energy and we had time. Now that they are nearing 40 they are good people and our good investments helped put us in a decent position.
FIRE. I didn’t know of such a term but I guess it applies.
I’d say it applies. The extreme FIRE people would say that we don’t count because the traditional “live below your means, max out your 401k especially if there’s matching, invest in index funds and retire before you’re eligible for Social Security” isn’t really FIRE. They disdainfully call us Bogleheads after Jack Bogle, the founder of Vanguard who popularized the index fund. I’ll take it though.
The Bogleheads call themselves Bogleheads, though.
Yeah, we took it back. 
I had my boy at age 37. I have money, relative to what I had in my 20s. I have time too. Energy not so much.
I’m an old 41 though. I don’t think most people this age feel quite this exhausted. I’ve always struggled with chronic stuff.
I don’t see the big deal about having a kid in your thirties though. You’re more likely to be well established in your career, less likely to pay a penalty for being a mother, probably a damned sight more mature than you would have been ten years ago. At least that’s the case for me. I miscarried my first pregnancy when I was 32. It was a tragedy at the time but by the time I finally had my son I was so much more ready to have a child and that was just five years.
From a purely financial perspective it’s probably the best choice.
From any other perspective it’s probably a wash.
But having kids later is increasingly the norm, for all the reasons I listed. And if you want a PhD or to be a medical doctor you pretty much have to wait. The reason it took so long for us was predominantly my husband’s education taking for-fucking-ever.
I’ll tell you one thing that blows my mind. I had a child at the same age as my Mom was when I graduated high school.
Here’s a gift link to a new New York Times article about FIRE.
Re: differences in household sizes, some organizations will normalize by the square root of members. It’s crude. But using that method, these are all equivalent:
| Size | Income |
|---|---|
| 1 | $50,000 |
| 2 | $70,711 |
| 3 | $86,603 |
| 4 | $100,000 |
I assume that’s supposed to indicate relative levels of income to support the same lifestyle?
If so, I can see it making SOME sense, though not necessarily being a perfect mapping. A 2 bedroom apartment likely doesn’t cost twice as much as a 1 bedroom, and so on; other expenses DO track more directly with number of people (food, clothing, medical).
On the other hand, when you retire, some of your income is directly tied to the number of people in the household. If a couple each has similar Social Security, then the death of one person slashes your income in half, while your housing costs are going to be the same (ignoring things like downsizing), and some other expenses may go up (paying someone to do things the spouse does). The decedent’s pension goes away or is slashed (depending on how it’s set up re survivorship).
Obviously that ignores things like other investments, but when making plans to retire at ANY age, you need to consider what happens with the cash flow when one of you dies.
Right. For instance, Pew’s definition of “middle income” is between two-thirds and twice the national median income. But they adjust those boundaries based on household size.
There’s no nuance to it. Whereas something like the MIT living wage calculator tries to factor different costs for adults and children. But it doesn’t account for anything specific to retirees, which is more relevant to this discussion.
Thanks for the link.