I’d argue that a shift away from pure ‘FIRE’ was inevitable as the number of people interested in it grows. You can’t do that solely with high earners living ultra-frugally. So as more people joined, it needed to flex. Arguably ‘slow fi’ is just ‘planning for retirement’ which people should be doing anyway. Put away decent savings for retirement as early as possible, but balanced with life needs. Thats what everyone should be doing for normal retirement age. If you have the funds available (or living costs are controllable) then increased contributions can help that retirement age come earlier. But at what point does FI become irrelevant - or simply absorbed by normal retirement planning?
It could be that the shift in FIRE was inevitable. It’s hard to pinpoint one single contributor to the change. It is a testament to the movement to be inclusive enough for others to join. Initially, I did not see myself as part of the FIRE movement because I wasn’t earning a high income. I think Slow FI is different than the traditional path, mainly because it’s using the financial freedom along the journey. Things like going down to part-time or taking a self-funded sabbatical aren’t normal - at least they don’t seem that way to me unless they’re motivated by spending more time with children.
FIRE sounds more catchy and people celebrate it. However for many normal people it's the FI that one is seeking and that slowly but steadily put one in strong footing. I agree with you regarding slow FI, but some may want to go fast so it's a personal preference. IMO the RE part is optional or should be kept for later or better retire normally instead of early. There is a reason government set retirement at that age and they pay pension at that point. Critics or FIRE club can argue and say I don't care and retire early but that's difficult for average people because their wealth is still tied to jobs and they have to still grind and work to meet their needs. Normal people should prepare in different ways - be it side hustles or small business or hobby or investing etc.
I agree that most people these days are pursuing FI, not RE. Such a good point. How would you define normal people? Is it income based, or some other metric?
@Fioneers Great question. By normal people I meant those with average income - like average Joe or plus minus. Not someone making six figures or not someone on government benefits or in shelter. Just the average regular people.
I’d argue that a shift away from pure ‘FIRE’ was inevitable as the number of people interested in it grows. You can’t do that solely with high earners living ultra-frugally. So as more people joined, it needed to flex.
Arguably ‘slow fi’ is just ‘planning for retirement’ which people should be doing anyway. Put away decent savings for retirement as early as possible, but balanced with life needs. Thats what everyone should be doing for normal retirement age. If you have the funds available (or living costs are controllable) then increased contributions can help that retirement age come earlier. But at what point does FI become irrelevant - or simply absorbed by normal retirement planning?
It could be that the shift in FIRE was inevitable. It’s hard to pinpoint one single contributor to the change. It is a testament to the movement to be inclusive enough for others to join. Initially, I did not see myself as part of the FIRE movement because I wasn’t earning a high income.
I think Slow FI is different than the traditional path, mainly because it’s using the financial freedom along the journey. Things like going down to part-time or taking a self-funded sabbatical aren’t normal - at least they don’t seem that way to me unless they’re motivated by spending more time with children.
FIRE sounds more catchy and people celebrate it. However for many normal people it's the FI that one is seeking and that slowly but steadily put one in strong footing. I agree with you regarding slow FI, but some may want to go fast so it's a personal preference. IMO the RE part is optional or should be kept for later or better retire normally instead of early. There is a reason government set retirement at that age and they pay pension at that point. Critics or FIRE club can argue and say I don't care and retire early but that's difficult for average people because their wealth is still tied to jobs and they have to still grind and work to meet their needs. Normal people should prepare in different ways - be it side hustles or small business or hobby or investing etc.
I agree that most people these days are pursuing FI, not RE. Such a good point. How would you define normal people? Is it income based, or some other metric?
@Fioneers Great question. By normal people I meant those with average income - like average Joe or plus minus. Not someone making six figures or not someone on government benefits or in shelter. Just the average regular people.