> Maybe he took those FI blogs seriously and dedicated himself to reaching that goal, and he did. And then people who never tried say "he got lucky".
My problem with most of the advice from FI and FIRE blogosphere is that it essentially boils down to "be the 1% (where you live) and live frugally". It's not wrong, per se, but it isn't actionable advice for 99% of the population[1].
In particular, while anyone could be MMM, not everyone can be MMM: There simply aren't enough people who read financial advice blogs to support a significant population of such bloggers living in rural LCOL-ville. Even if there were, someone has to stock the shelves at Walmart. Shelf-stockers simply don't earn enough to retire early, unless shelf-stocker wages rise to a level that makes blog-FIRE unsustainable.
It's sort of like asking why everyone doesn't buy a rental and become landlord. Who rents the apartment then? Or do all the landlords rent apartments from each other?
[1] Perhaps it isn't a 99/1 split. Maybe it's 90/10. But it sure isn't 50/50.
With advice, you have to read it, decide if it works for you and then utilize it or discard it. You do not have to decide if it works for everyone and discard if it doesn't.
There are aspects of MMM's that anyone can do, but obviously the huge income he got after retiring from the MMM blog is unique to him (and the few really successful FI bloggers) and for many, just having insufficient income compared to the cost of living will be a roadblock. In general, this post seems to be a rebuttal about these ideas people have about MMM - https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/10/05/the-fire-movement....
I mean if you want everyone to have the same opportunities, you are welcome to give up the advantages you might have so that others get better opportunities. Or you can look at your own life and decide what's best for you.
> You do not have to decide if it works for everyone and discard if it doesn't.
First, I am not discarding the advice. I was responding to the idea that successful practitioners didn't get lucky.
Second, my assertion is that the advice is useful for only a small segment of the population. The goalposts have moved to the opposite end of the field if we are now talking about advice for everyone except for a small segment of the population.
> I mean if you want everyone to have the same opportunities, you are welcome to give up the advantages you might have so that others get better opportunities.
Nowhere did I say that everyone should have the same opportunities.
Finally, your link does not seem to refute my point (I've seen it before).
"I was responding to the idea that successful practitioners didn't get lucky."
Of course they are "lucky", but only because they took the risks and went in prepared. There is no 100% guarantee for anything, so you also need luck. The article here actually shows that, because the blogger was unlucky to have an expensive disease that made his plan nonviable.
I think the point of FI is to lower consumption. As long as your total consumption matches your total production over your lifetime, it's sustainable. The level of consumption described in this post (30k/y) is at or below the median level of consumption, so it is certainly attainable for many people, even if they can't achieve it as quickly as the OP).
> In particular, while anyone could be MMM, not everyone can be MMM: There simply aren't enough people who read financial advice blogs to support a significant population of such bloggers living in rural LCOL-ville. Even if there were, someone has to stock the shelves at Walmart. Shelf-stockers simply don't earn enough to retire early, unless shelf-stocker wages rise to a level that makes blog-FIRE unsustainable.
If overall consumption were reduced by a factor of 10, everyone could work 10% as much over their lifetime. I see no reason that couldn't be a hard few years of shelf-stacking until you get together enough to retire. Maybe that would be a better way for society to operate.
I'm tired of this shelf stocker narrative (or more general, the "some people simply have no chance whatsoever"). I think most people don't remain shelf stockers forever. In my country, it is often pupils who do it, or retired people who make some extra bucks. I don't think anybody expects shelf stocking to be their life long career. And even if you were to do shelf stocking all your life, I don't think it means you can't do anything about your financial situation. Same goes for most other low wage jobs. All the "income equality" charts tend to omit the age distribution, a lot of it may simply be older people earning more because they had more time to acquire skills and progress in their careers.
I can perhaps agree that there is no single rule that everybody in the world could follow to become financially independent, like your "rent housing out to other people" example. Nevertheless, in most environments, there is something people can do. If you just have a house you yourself can live in, it also saves you a lot of money.
At the very least, most people have to retire eventually. And many manage to do so, too. As a last resort, perhaps try to have children who can take care of you.
My problem with most of the advice from FI and FIRE blogosphere is that it essentially boils down to "be the 1% (where you live) and live frugally". It's not wrong, per se, but it isn't actionable advice for 99% of the population[1].
In particular, while anyone could be MMM, not everyone can be MMM: There simply aren't enough people who read financial advice blogs to support a significant population of such bloggers living in rural LCOL-ville. Even if there were, someone has to stock the shelves at Walmart. Shelf-stockers simply don't earn enough to retire early, unless shelf-stocker wages rise to a level that makes blog-FIRE unsustainable.
It's sort of like asking why everyone doesn't buy a rental and become landlord. Who rents the apartment then? Or do all the landlords rent apartments from each other?
[1] Perhaps it isn't a 99/1 split. Maybe it's 90/10. But it sure isn't 50/50.