Can you show me what is the statistic that people are actually retiring early? an official retirement age is just a number put on retirement. At one point Australia trying to implement retirement age at 70 so are you saying the whole world should set the retirement age at 70?

Jack Ma founded alibaba in 1999 when he was 35 so why you think Alibaba would not exist?

Since when in my comment that I indicated that when I retiring and I will live alone? Can you please show me?


I don't think smoking in public is a selfish act and I dont agree with your comment on smoking.

I think those with FIRE mindset are not ambitious. They are contented bunch of people

If you read back the pages, they are talking about RM2k to RM5k per month to retire.

With such small amount, capitalism failed big time.

Coming back to analogy of RE and smoking. You can see the trend of enacting laws that “preventing/discouraging” both acts. Smoking become more and more restricted. And EPF contribution/withdrawing age deferment and extending our official retirement age are being talked about more and more. It doesn’t only happen in malaysia, but all around the world

RE is a trend. And my hypothesis is coming from the Macro-Economics point of view that RE is a selfish act that if a sizeable population RE, it would have an adverse effect on the economy

Again I give you the smoking analogy. You can argue that the smokers population is very small thus the effect to the other non-smoker is negligible. But regardless of the number, smoking is a selfish act. Because it affects people around you. And when half of our population becomes smokers, then it would become a big problem.

You keep talking about your comment as hypothesis, do you have statistics to show that people who retire early will severely affect the economy?

Yes EPF is extending the age of retirement this is part contributed by the longevity of population.

If a person can choose to retire early while his financial permitted so who are you to judge people are selfish?

Smoking also contribute to the tax and economy so based on your logic that people should not retire early because they don’t contribute to economy then why you said smoker is selfish? They contribute to economy via sin tax and the more cigarette they buy the more workforce required.

Depends on country. In Malaysia, 55 is the official retirement age. So, any age earlier that that is early

For Australia, I think it was 67 ?

No, I am not saying the whole world have a single number. It depends on the official age of the country

Because those with FIRE mindset try very hard not to work another day if they could. They have no passion to work. Working is just for money.

Jack Ma on the other hand is a visionary. He is ambitious. He created new way of life and changed a new world.

Any proponent of FIRE here has Jack Ma’s ambition ? I don’t think so.

I am referring to my analogy of smoking vs RE.

You said that smoking is selfish in front of children.

So, when a person retires, he retires and live in a society. It will affect people around you. Unless you can retire and live in the mountain alone, then my hypothesis does not stand

I am not sure smoking analogy is appropriate. Smoking is discouraged..yes. Extending retirement age is exactly because most people cannot achieve FI by age 55 to 60 and hence have to work longer...otherwise they will run out of money after age 55 and becomes a social problem..

There is a difference between "trend to FIRE" and "actual FIRE” Yes, there is an increasing desire to FIRE. How that trend translates to actual achievement of FIRE is not known. I suspect the % achieving FIRE will remain low.

I'm neutral on those capable calls FI/RE on their 40. Afterall, it's their choice and leveraging on capitalism system.


Agreed. it'll affect economy condition if hit 30%. However, it ain't going to happened. I doubt FI population can exceed 1% of population, not to mention those jump into RE at age 40-50.
Even your hypothesis 30% occur, many of them will fall back from financial freedom as their projected return is way lower to sustain their life. The capitalism rules just not allow it happened.

I can't deny it can happened these thing can potential co-exist (4). However, the magnitude or effort required if much higher. You probably missed the point where core essence of FI/RE is about buying more time (finite good) vs money (fiat money practically just a number in core banking system).

Agreed on most of the points above. Again, our fundamental understanding of FI/RE is different. In fact, all these happened since old day without such glamour word FI/RE.
Old saying would be a person change his career path in mid-life from corporate white colar to book writer/voluntary or hawker char kway teow. Points 4-8 is archive by leaving their 9-5 corporate dayjob with solid financial as backup.


In fact, I would says FI/RE is more archivable nowaday due to capatilism, and ease of access to various investment vehicle, knowledge & information aside from self awakening and determination.

Agreed! Finally saw someone like minded and relates FI/RE as a by-product of capitalism. It's all about exceed and concentration of wealth to smaller group of ppl.

Like I have said, look at countries which has aging population problem, then you will understand from the Economics point of view

RE has similar effect to aging population problem.


My hypothesis says so.

I have list down the argument in my hypothesis clearly why RE is termed a selfish act


Smokers is used as an analogy because :

Smoker —> secondhand smoke —> selfish

Early retiree —> early net consumer of economic resource —> selfish

This post has been edited by Showtime747: Sep 10 2018, 03:58 PM

I think so too. FIRE although is a trend, but no many people will achieve it.

But in my hypothesis (and remain as a hypothesis), if a sizeable population achieve RE, it would have adverse effect on the economy. It is not a good thing. And a selfish act like smoking

I know what you mean. There are some who take this to the extreme. They save like mad, up to 70%, and then they "retire" at age 35, living on subsistence level of passive income, and they call it "freedom"... yes, taken to the extreme, it is toxic!

And the root cause of their problem is their disliking of the job. RE is just a get around. Not the true solution

If they have a job they are passionate about, they won’t retire at all

All in all, what I want to say is FI is a good thing. But RE is a bad thing, both personal or society/economy as a whole

Again thanks for the link that “inspire” my economic hypothesis

Macro economics = seeing things in a very big picture.

If more & more people are being miser or "living frugal", generally the economy will go bearish as majority population are holding onto their hard earned money. Money is something that's meant to be passed around, hence the term "currency". The more it moves, the economy will grow. Government implements either expansionary or contractionary fiscal policies to drive up to or lower down the economic growth.

Ultimately the FIRE trend will burn back at the same people who practices it if more & more people follow suit, making it a trend until it affects the macro-economy. Lesser spending leads to lesser economic growth. Lesser economic growth leads to possible deflation or worse; stagflation. Then investors gain lesser & lesser from their investments, pushing their FIRE goals further & further. In the worse case scenario, investing yields nothing & saving loses its value every minute.

FIRE is only ideal in a bullish economy. Where majority of the people are spending & actively contributing to the economy. That's when lotsa bank/govt borrowing is happening, driving up cost of funds & pushing up the market's ROI rates. When the ROI is high, investors' portfolio flourish as well.

So the whole concept of FIRE or the number of FIRE people are kept in balance by the market forces. When too many people jumped on the FIRE bandwagon, the economy goes bearish. Hence, pushing people's FIRE goals further or forcing FIREd people back into the workforce - essentially reducing the number of FIRE people.

I don't think that there are jobs that people can remain passionate about their whole life. Certainly, not enough people are having such jobs. I don't think such "dream jobs" exist often enough. I also think FI is definitely a good thing. However, I dun think RE is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, personally to me, RE is a good thing. If one needs to stay in a job to kill time or to remain "productive" in the eyes of society, that in itself is quite pathetic. Of course, if one personally derives lots of pleasure in continuing to work even after achieving FI, then, by all means, go ahead. But there is no one size fits all..

In a way, we never have to fret that enough people will FIRE to tank the economy. Economies will balance on its own. If enough people are on the path to FIRE and thus shrinking the economy, returns will be low and hence those who are borderline FIRE will be forced back into the workforce because their passive income can no longer sustain them.

LOL.... I originally intent to 'inspire' our extreme frugal young friends.

After all, it's kinda like we can't says certain religion is bad... the core problem is ppl take it to extreme with their bias belief.

FI/RE just another lifestyle system within capitalism. Cant simply judge such capitalism lifestyle is pure good or absolute bad.

Impremenant, its not realistic to expect human mind stay same as one perspectives get evolves. And its natural progression ppl opt for FI/RE due to its more accessible now.

Law on Retirement Age in Malaysia. The Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012 (MRA Act) came into effect on 01.07.2013, stating that the minimum retirement age of an employee shall be the age of 60 years old. The MRA Act applies to all employers and employees in the private sector throughout Malaysia.

"Financial independence typically means having enough income to pay your living expenses for the rest of your life without having to work full time. Some people achieve this through saving and investing over many years, while others build successful businesses that can generate income without daily supervision"

which part of the FIRE mean the person who chose to retire will be a financial burden?

You keep talking about aging population, now tell me what is the co-relation between aging population and person who chose to retire early? A person at 40-45 can chose to retire early but he still can contributes to economy via other mean.

"Population ageing is an increasing median age in the population of a region due to declining fertility rates and/or rising life expectancy."

Your hypothesiss is merely a limited guess with limited fact. How do you know a person who retire early will not work on another area that he/she prefer? I have seen people who retire early but they want to dedicate them self to charity ngo, mission, religion outreach, and etc. so are you saying all people who chose to retire early will stay at home and wait till they die? By the way, do you know those chose to retire early because their financial situation allow them to do so and they are still continue to spend money and they amount of money they spend have got multiplier effect in the economy? Just because they might not contribute to tax but doesn't mean they don't spend money in the economy chain.

I believed you and I do not know whether Jack Ma chose to retire early or not. Well according to the article, he choose to retire at 54 and prefer to spend more time in education. so are you saying he is a useless person now?

What make you think a person retires and he will affect people around them? He still can continue to spend money (if he financial permitted, if not I don't think he want to retire early)

I said smoking in front of children is selfish but if the area is allow to smoke so what is so selfish?

This post has been edited by tippman: Sep 10 2018, 06:55 PM

No you do not have facts to back up that person who chose to retire early because they are not passionate about the job. A businessman can chose to retire early because the business is self sustain and he is manage to look for a partner that running the whole business for him while he continue to receive passive income from the dividend that the business generate.

Very good explanation

My hypothesis has already clearly stated and answered your question.


AS I said, googled Japan population aging problem.


Looks like you don't understan what "hypothesis" means. Yes, you are right, it is a guess


I never used the word "useless". I used the word "selfish" for people who retire early, according to my hypothesis

Jack Ma retires close to official retirement age. So he is not selfish

Read back my hypothesis. My hypothesis has already clearly stated and answered your question.

It's an analogy for my hypothesis. According to my hypothesis, yes, smoking in public is selfish, even if the area legally permits smoking. Same goes for RE, there is no law to say it is illegal

Oh....I now know you don't understand what a "hypothesis" means....

Before my hypothesis raise your blood pressure further, do google and understand what a hypothesis mean