One of my mentees (whom we’ll call Pat . . . because why not) in a mentoring program I’m involved with will graduate from high school the week this blog post goes live. Pat’s bright, capable, and an eager learner open to new information and perspectives.
But when it comes to personal finance education, Pat’s pretty typical of almost everyone many people, let alone high schoolers. Not disinterested, but making no proactive effort to learn. To wit, Pat’s nodded politely each time that I mentioned that I’d love to school him in the world of personal finance, but never has committed to a get-together.
In thinking about what to get Pat as a graduation present, I had an epiphany: FIRE (community) books! If you can’t bring Mohammed to the mountain, I thought, bring the mountain to Mohammed.
In early May 2024, I gave Pat three books that, in the aggregate, give an overview of FIRE, and details on the nuts and bolts. He received them with more enthusiasm than I expected (tho he’s pretty good at faking things, so I’m not sure if he was pulling my chain).
Dangling articles
The very next day, The New York Times posted on its website an article on the FIRE movement. Ooohhh!, I thought. I should send Pat a link to the article and mention that it addresses the very stuff covered in the books I’d given him the night before.
First, some background. Before the start of this year’s Econome conference (held in March 2024), the event’s founder/organizer/impresario Diania Merriam informed registrants that a Times reporter would be at the conference and would later be writing an article, presumably on the conference and maybe more. The prospect of an article on Econome and/or FIRE in such a well-respected mainstream publication piqued my interest.
A day into the event, I completely forgot that the reporter was (supposed to be) there. The memory stayed forgotten until the Times article was published. When I saw the headline, “Your Neighbors Are Retiring in Their 30s. Why Can’t You?,” my eyes lit up. I dove into the piece.
I’ve read dozens of articles on FIRE and the FIRE movement over the years. Heck, I learned about FIRE in the first place by way of a piece kinda sorta on the subject, cloaked in the garb of an exposé on Mr. Money Mustache.
Some have been wholly objective and pretty good, tho almost in every instance too short to give a full enough rundown. I’m not saying that a 10-page article is necessary to do the subject justice, but something like three short paragraphs is just too short.
Many more have been relatively objective, but painted a picture that’d at best cause the reader to scrunch his or her nose, and at worst cause him or her to be turned off to FIRE altogether. I mean, if I read one more time that to be part of the FIRE movement and/or to FIRE, you must save at least 50% of your income, and ideally 70–80%, I’m gonna puke. I never came anywhere remotely close to those percentages, and I FIREd just fine. Countless others have done the same.
But far too many of these articles have in part—and sometimes in whole—been designed almost specifically to caricature people pursuing FIRE as freaks and to completely turn off readers from the concept. Sadly, the Times article was to no small degree one of these types (the New Yorker article was like this, too, tho it manifestly backfired in repelling me).
UGH!!!
Good and badder
To be fair to the reporter, she did provide some good objective information on the concept and movement, including some legit reasons why many people find it appealing enough to want to pursue. But on the whole, in your humble blogger’s opinion, the reporter failed.
First, she largely focused on fat FIRE. Now, fat FIRE is a for-real thing. Heck, I’m aiming to reach it at some point (tho if I do it’ll be almost accidental, unlike as to my pursuit of FIRE, an end I most definitely sought as a man on a mission)). But I’ve come across precious few who have it as their starting goal.
And, frankly, while I don’t deny that many could reach fat FIRE, it’s decidedly a far higher bar to reach than plain ol’ vanilla FIRE. And, sure, like I acknowledged above, some people may be pursuing fat FIRE right outta the gate. But I’ve no doubt that far, far more are targeting regular, coast, or barista FIRE. Something much easier and more realistic.
There was a lot more in the article to turn off readers. Including a passage in which the reporter talks about her own experience, using “online surveys, research studies, plasma donation, vintage resale, parts modeling and dog-sitting in other people’s homes in lieu of paying rent.” And “[waking] up at the crack of dawn to day-trade $NVDA, $TSLA, $TSM.” And relating that when she feels sad, she “check[s] on the interest rates in the five-pronged CD ladder [she’s] lovingly assembled in my Marcus account, like a tic, to feel better.”
Are all of these things legit? Sure (I’ve even done some of them myself). But is the picture gonna appeal to an average reasonable person who’s just learning of FIRE from this article? Call me crazy for thinking that the masses will gag at a direction that that to FIRE you need to spend all your waking moments hustling—including by doing such things like hawking your plasma—and save (worth noting, the article doesn’t properly address the secret sauce of how to FIRE: investing) to the point of years of total sacrifice.
I haven’t rolled my eyes so much at a FIRE article since the Wall Street Journal published an article titled, “The New Retirement Plan: Save Almost Everything, Spend Virtually Nothing,” which opened with a passage about someone pursuing FIRE who shopped for “brown bananas and other soon-to-be discarded items from fruit and vegetable stands” and was saving 70% of her income to reach the massive sum of $2 million!.
I’m gonna hazard a guess that very few FIRE aspirants are interested in any of that. I certainly haven’t met any, even if there are plenty of creative if curious ways to lower one’s food expenses and to save more. I imagine, too, that far fewer non-FIRE people are likely to find this sort of thing appealing. Oh, and the Journal article headline? Gimme a break!
Writing wrongs
Let me be clear, I’m generally all for articles—especially in mainstream publications like the Times, Journal, and New Yorker—on FIRE. Even ones that discuss some of the odder elements of it and aspirants. But I think these articles do a disservice. On the contrary, I think, they can be just as clickbaity just by focusing on the concept of FIRE alone. I mean, isn’t the idea of financial independence (“Wait! What’s that?!,” I can imagine readers of these articles who are unfamiliar with FIRE saying) and/or retiring “early” and potentially in just 10-15 years (as it is for many) once you get on the path radical enough?! I mean, how many people outside the FIRE movement do that (voluntarily)?!
And while I know that most of these reporters aren’t in the business of personal finance education, shouldn’t they at least—after finding a concept that’s both good and effective (something that most of these reporters acknowledge—try not just to elicit a strong response in readers, but paint an accurate picture? I mean, an article focused on some ordinary schmos (like me!) spending just 5–15 years saving and investing in a more aggressive (tho almost always sound) way than “normal” people, while not living a life of material deprivation, to accomplish something extraordinary—reaching FI and the option of RE at the end of that pretty short timeframe—seems an awfully eye-catching story to me!
I’m cautiously optimistic that at some point, this’ll happen. After all, FIRE has become more mainstream even in the short timeframe within which I’ve known about it (even if it decidedly is nowhere close to fully mainstream yet). Also, the community’s deserved or not brand focused on saving/investing to the point of deprivation also seems at least to be withering on the vine. These days, a happy lifestyle during the pursuit, and after it, is what’s widely discussed. That seems something everyone would be on board with.
And in the end . . .
So, I’m hopeful that there’s more of an appetite for articles painting not just a true, but appealing, picture of FIRE. Done right, readers’ eyes won’t pop out of their head because they think FIRE and the people pursuing it are crazy, but because the concept is so darned appealing.
