Ok, so the title is a bit over-the-top. š
But “Suze Orman is Not a FIRE Expert” just didn’t have the same ring to it. Ha!
Anyway, today’s post is about a clueless financial “expert”, the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) community, some good points about planning for retirement, and an admission of a mistake (for which I give a TON of credit.)
But before we get to all that, let me give a bit of my backstory…
My Perception of Suze Orman
I’ve never really thought a lot about personal finance “expert” Suze Orman.
Oh, I’ve been aware of her, of course, but she was someone who was just “out there” in the public sphere to me. I didn’t have any feelings toward her one way or the other.
As I look back, I guess it’s because I saw her as a combination of 1) plain vanilla advice and 2) not having much information that was new to me.
Well, then she went and caused a stink in the FIRE community and made it on my bad list.
Oh goodness, Suze. We could have been friends.
But in the end, she redeemed herself… š
Suze Hates FIRE
Unless you’ve been under a rock for the past month or so it’s likely you’ve read about what happened.
The short version is that Suze went on the Afford Anything podcast and denounced FIRE (here’s a written summary if you prefer to read instead of listen).
Her exact words when asked about it were:
āI hate it. I hate it. I hate it. And let me tell you why.ā
The interview goes downhill from there.
And for good measure she later threw in:
“I personally think it is the biggest mistake financially speaking you will ever, ever make in your lifetime. I think it’s just ridiculous.”
It was not a bad interview because of the quality, the discussion, the production, or anything like that.
No, it was poor because Suze spent 30 minutes on a tirade during which she demonstrated that she’s more of a journalist than a financial expert.
We’ll get to that in a minute. For now let me review what happened next.
A few days later, Paula Pant from the Afford Anything podcast, released what could be called a “What the Heck?” summary of the interview.
Shortly after that, the ChooseFI podcast had what I considered to be a very thoughtful and balanced response to Suze’s issues.
And of course there were the ubiquitous blog posts about how Suze was wrong, out of touch, and so forth. The story took on a life of its own and gained a lot of press (which I suspect was part of Suze’s initial plan.)
But eventually Suze backed off a bit and, as they say, “clarified her remarks“.
Now that the dust has settled, I wanted to address a few issues that I thought this incident brought to light.
Suze Orman is a Clueless Financial Journalist
Let’s begin with the Suze bashing since it will be more fun. Don’t worry if you feel this is unfair. I will kiss and make up with her at the end. Kind of.
I don’t really mind anyone’s thoughts on FIRE — good or bad. What do I care anyway? I’m retired and she’s still working! LOL!
But there were some things about the interview that I just can’t let pass.
Here are a few reasons why I think Suze Orman is not a financial expert but simply a journalist:
1. She has poor comprehension of a topic she’s supposed to be an “expert” in.
And no, I can’t help writing “expert” without quotes when it refers to her.
She has what Mike Rowe described as a “plaque approach” understanding when it comes to FIRE. He described this level of knowledge obtained by most journalists in my post titled Mainstream Financial Experts Are Experts at Creating the Illusion of Competence.
Here’s the summary, in Mike’s words:
āAs a host, itās nothing but ritual. You stay up the night before and get smart on the topic, you have to. Youāve got to Google meā¦youāve got to read up on meā¦you have to do something. And I had become very facile over the years at creating the illusion of competence. But thatās all it was. I used to call it the plaque approach. Literally a plaque on a statue. I used to host all kinds of shows where we were pulling stuff out of our butts constantly and Iād walk up to the statue of Francis Scott Key and I would read the plaque. Iād get it in my short term memory and then Iād turn to the camera and say, āFrancis Scott Key born inā¦blah, blah, blah.ā And so people would say, āThat Mike knows everything.ā Mike doesnāt know sh*t. He knows how to read a plaque.ā
Mike should know because he’s been a journalist/actor for a few decades. He understands how the game is played.
Up to this interview I thought that Suze was fairly knowledgeable on money issues — an exception to the rule for most financial “experts”.
But when she went on and on about things she clearly doesn’t understand, I could see that her knowledge was at the “plaque approach” level.
For example, her perception of FIRE revolves around the paradigm that you retire at “25 or 30 or 35.”
The fact that she didn’t get the various nuances of FIRE isn’t really a surprise since we in the community often can’t come to terms with what it means. (For example, what does it mean to be “retired”?) I get that.
But for heaven’s sake, don’t go on a tirade about something when you don’t understand it!
It just demonstrates that you have a superficial understanding and I’m sure that’s not the image you’re trying to portray.
To add to her misunderstanding, she assumed that FIRE people retire, then curl up in a ball.
She states:
“What are you going to do with your life in ten years? Do you think you’re not going to get bored?”
Again, it demonstrates that she just doesn’t get it.
She doesn’t understand that when you “retire from full-time work” that you don’t “retire from all work.”
Yes, it’s a nuance, but it’s one you better understand before you spout off “expert” opinions about it.
In the end it’s clear that she has a very basic (at best) understanding of FIRE. That comes through in spades.
2. She’s out of touch with the real world.
You know, the world that those of us without a private island live in.
This comes across in the numbers she uses. A few examples…
- She spent “$2.5 million in seven years” on her mom’s care and assumed this is normal/average. She said it cost $30,000 a month to take care of her mother for “full time help and everything” and assumed this was what all of us were facing. Separately she said: “If you need to go into a nursing home it will be $20-$25,000 a month.” I don’t know if her mom lived in the Taj Mahal for her care, but I can guarantee that the average long-term care cost is not $20k to $30k a month.
- As she was talking through a hypothetical retirement budget (in addition to long-term care costs) she assumed that the person needed “another $100,000 a year” to live (above medical costs). As if a $100k budget post-medical costs is average or something.
- She says that an income that’s well above what the average person has is lacking: “In the long run $80,000 especially after taxes and especially as you get older is not going to be enough.” And again: “If you think $80,000 a year as you get older is going to make it for you before taxes I have a bridge to sell you.” So someone with $80k income can’t retire? Nope, not according to Suze.
- She lists an unbelievably high amount needed to retire: “You need at least $5 million, $6 million so that 5% (and that’s before tax)…to yield you $300,000. Really you might need $10 million so if you’re making 5% on that money after tax you’ll be fine without touching your principal.”
I could go on but I think you get the point. She was using numbers that were so unrealistic as to be laughable.
3. She contradicted herself.
Saying one thing and then the opposite does not create a great impression when you’re trying to make a point. Or when you’re holding yourself out as an expert.
She contrasted how executives with very high incomes could not retire, but average workers with $50k incomes could.
I’m still not sure as to why the latter was ok and yet executives (or FIRE folks) weren’t, but it seemed it was because the execs spent too much and the FIRE people had too long to live.
But that’s just a guess at what she meant. In all, it was confusing and she seemed to say one thing (like someone earning a boatload couldn’t retire) and then something different (like a worker earning a modest salary could) that did not reflect kindly on her.
4. She had at least one bizarre prediction.
The quote:
“Artificial intelligence is coming in and don’t be surprised if by 2030 there’s a 25% unemployment rate.”
She then goes on to say this will impact taxes, Social Security, and so forth. The reason: because there will be so few workers, there will be no money left for Social Security. This in turn will necessitate a huge increase in taxes. This will then kill all early retirement budgets.
First of all, I’m not a big believer in grand predictions like these. It may happen or it may not. We may all be wiped out by a meteor too. Should we prepare for that?
Second, if there’s a huge population that can’t be unemployed, doesn’t the fact that some of us voluntarily leave our jobs actually help the situation of those looking for work?
It just seemed strange in this conversation to even bring it up.
5. Her tone made the message worse.
The opinions above were delivered in a combative, I-know-more-than-all-of-you style that did not reflect well on her.
Then there was the fear-mongering. “As you get older, things happen. Not only do things happen as you get older things happen when you are younger. You’re hit by a car, you fall down on the ice, you get sick, you get cancer. Things happen.”
Yes, bad things happen. But do we have to literally work the rest of our lives “just in case”? And will working make any difference if you get run over by a truck?
Throw in the snobbish mentions of her “private island” and multi-million dollar net worth and the delivery made the message worse.
Some quotes:
- “I fly on a private plane, I live on a private island, I go anywhere and do anything…I will never live long enough to outspend my money.”
- “Nobody has talked to more people about money than me anywhere in this world.”
- “I am seriously rich.”
- “I’ve watched my pennies…turn into $50 million and beyond. I saw it. I created it.”
- “Those are the things none of you are thinking about.” (Bad events)
This tone made things worse for her. Because in addition to appearing unknowledgeable in several areas, she was very unlikeable — a killer for any sort of public personality.
There’s more (like she mentioned her new book and other promotional efforts ad nauseam) that made this even more of a train wreck, but I think you get the idea.
The whole interview was a so-called financial “expert” showing that she knew little, had bad facts, couldn’t make a good argument, and was unlikeable.
Not her best moment.
It Wasn’t All Bad
With all this you might imagine that she had nothing of value to say.
Actually, it was far from that.
Somehow she managed to get in some very solid thoughts amongst the interview disaster.
Some of them:
- She covered the basics of saving, investing, compound interest, etc. All very good “personal finance 101” points.
- Her overall sentiment was that “bad things happen”. This is a good reminder for the often-too-optimistic FIRE crowd. I too worry about those that retire so early with so little (i.e. the Lean FIRE folks). The solution is to build in some margins of safety but I wonder if many do this.
- She pointed out that you lose compounding impact when you stop adding to your investments and start withdrawing. And, of course, compounding is a great asset not to be given up lightly.
- She noted that inflation could be very bad on all retirement budgets. Inflation is something few FIRE people consider IMO — and it is more likely than many other problem scenarios and can be more devastating.
So the interview wasn’t a complete waste.
And as Paula said, it’s good to hear opinions different from your own as they challenge you to consider what you really believe and ultimately get better.
They just need to be delivered by someone who knows what’s she’s talking about. And uses realistic numbers. And is coherent. And is at least neutral on the likeability scale.
A Change of Heart
Well, after the FIRE world heard the interview and went crazy, Suze found religion.
I’m not sure if she felt the heat, realized she was wrong or what happened, but Suze issued this clarification.
The highlight:
“I now realize that I was given bad information. Retire Early for FIRE followers is not about stopping work completely. It is about stopping work that you donāt like, or just do for the money, and finding work that you actually enjoy, and that fulfills you.”
It wasn’t a complete retraction (or even any retraction at all) of all she did wrong, but it was something, and for this I give her a ton of credit.
In today’s “I can’t admit a mistake or I’m dead” world, admitting that you were wrong is the sign of a very mature person IMO. I like Suze much better as a result of it, and I commend her.
That said, it doesn’t cancel out a lot of what she said and the main point of this post — she’s like so many other financial “experts”.
And yet again we have a warning to be very careful who we take money advice from. Many of them actually know very little about managing money.
The Physician Philosopher says
I find it amazing when people decide to spout off on topics that they know very little about, but it doesn’t surprise me that people like “getting a rise” out of others. I bet that was one of Paula’s most listened to episodes now that the top has blown off the way that it did.
Suze is clearly out of touch with both reality for the normal person and with the concepts involved in FIRE.
I do completely, 100% agree with what you said at the end, though. Someone’s ability to admit to a mistake and to try and “be better” thereafter makes up for a lot in my book.
I still think the take home is that people need to financially educate themselves, because trusting the mainstream financial advice and financial industry can often lead to bad knowledge and advice. There are “good guys/girls” out there in the press and industry, but you need to do your homework first.
ESI-34 says
“I still think the take home is that people need to financially educate themselves, because trusting the mainstream financial advice and financial industry can often lead to bad knowledge and advice. There are āgood guys/girlsā out there in the press and industry, but you need to do your homework first.”
I think that is a perfect conclusion regarding Suze and the FIRE community. Please put your pitchforks down and hear me out…
I agree with ESI’s post but a lot of people simply do not do their homework and can find themselves in trouble quickly. The FIRE community has had a lot of exposure with plenty of people saying “I did it and so can you” but everyone must lay out a plan that works for them and commit to that. I see people reading through popular blogs and thinking it’s easy and sometimes that’s the interpretation when you hear successful people share their stories. A well articulated article explaining the climb to the “top” makes it seem so easy. That is, until you’re the one going through the struggles or making sacrifices.
FIRE is a lifestyle that you must adapt to and be happy with. If you’re not happy retiring early at 40 or 50, what’s the point? The idea is to enjoy life and as many have said, you can have X, Y, or Z…just not all at the same time. This has been elaborated upon so many times, over and over but I can easily picture people applying part of your message and hoping for the same results. We get that’s not what FIRE is, but for someone who hasn’t spent time researching, they do not.
I regularly watched Suze’s show a few years ago and she did provide financial advice but she’s very much a TV personality driven by ratings. Her constantly demeaning tone is fun to watch and many times the show catered to outrageous requests. As ESI stated, she also goes to the extreme way too many times (prepare for an apocalypse) and is clearly out of touch with with much of the population. I believe she had the wrong approach in her interview but I also think her message will resonate with those who really don’t have the discipline or understanding to FIRE. I understand my points do not justify Suze (as they shouldn’t) but maybe her condescending tone will dissuade someone who just wants to be part of the fad from ruining the good life they already have? Maybe it’s a slap in the face to them? Maybe it will cause them to research more? Just maybe, this will all be beneficial for others to learn from…
Matthew Boyd says
Everyone knows Orman is a total carnival circus act when it comes to finance… a huckster at best .. she is a complete fraud.. no one really listens to that quack..
Fred Leamnson says
I was appalled when I listened to the podcast. Her blowing off about her island, her wealth, and her net worth, and the shameless promotion throughout got me angrier as I listened.
She is a brilliant manipulator of the media. To me, that’s her gift. She knew the interview would get the FIRE community in an uproar. It did. Bloggers and podcasters inundated the internet with retorts to the interview. That played right into her hands IMO.
I suppose it helped the FIRE movement as well. They also got lots of free press from it. I wish FIRE would have taken a step back and not had such a knee-jerk reaction.
Your review is thoughtful and balanced. And you didn’t fire off a reply the next day. Good for you. I think she did herself more harm than good. Her strategy may have backfired. One can only hope.
Debbie says
Susie Orman needs more money than the average person because she lives the lifestyle of the rich and famous. The rest of us can live on far less than she. She must have hired RN’s for her mother because $30,000/month comes to over $40/hr for around the clock care. Sitters cost much less than that. I do worry about long term care. Assisted living in my area costs $5,000-$7,000 per month. I turned down long term care insurance at my work place because the monthly premiums can increase through the years with no limit and the maximum it pays out is $300,000. I already have that much saved so I thought why bother, but I may regret it down the road.
Paper Tiger (aka MI 27) says
Hi Debbie, I don’t normally make specific recommendations for something like this but you might check out the offerings from Lincoln Financial. They have one program where you put in $100K and nothing else and, depending on your age and health, that buys you considerable coverage for LT care needs. It also comes with a life insurance component that pays out $175K at death. If you never use LTC then you get that full amount but they do deduct from the payout by the amount of LTC payments you may have used throughout your life. It is straightforward and no additional costs required.
Razorback 14 says
Suze wears me out!!! But, Iām glad she saw the light. Maybe?!?
I think itās best to do your own research and build your own plan based on all the knowledge youāve gained āā- bits and pieces learned from āso calledā experts is fine, but to me, the real experts are the people who are living by example and willing to share their story. ESI is the perfect space for doing this, IMO.
Honestly, Iāve learned more from the Millionaire interviews than any other place āā. All participants seem to have that helping spirit.
I retired at 57 yrs of age after a long career in education, only to move on to another world. A world I never dreamed would happen during my lifetimeā-
Once I left my chosen field after 30+ years, I consulted for a year and traveled to China six times to work with superintendents and principalsāā I even put together a plan where I helped bring 15 school leaders from China to America to visit schools in Kansas. This would have never happened if I would not have retired early.
Next, Iām working (for the last five years) for a non-profit group where we help school district leaders purchase electricity at a much lower price than our competitors (all for profit) āā So proud I retired early and took on this challenge as well.
So, in my mind, retire early and do something completely different to push the spirit of helping others.
It seems simple to me now, but I remember the fear I experienced when I actually pulled the trigger and moved to FIRE action.
Tyler says
Only you, the reader, know whether you allowed Suze Orman to get under your skin. But if you did, that should be chalked up as a loss in the “life’s wins/losses” ledger we should all be keeping in our brains. Gain a bit of perspective, move on, and do better next time.
Ellie says
I agree with your review of the entire Suze Orman debacle, but I really think that as most (but not all),in the FIRE community are obviously on the younger side, her perspective on life, as someone who is olde, has some validity. If you take it down a few notches that is. As you age, your perspective on life changes, and you begin to realize that health is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world , and how you age, and how you will be taken care of are of utmost importance. And the obvious financial aspects are going to make it or break it. So when Orman starts shouting about life’s scary problems, she is right. And these problems are expensive. Her numbers may be on the extreme end of things, but not that far out . My father-in-law was living in a nice life care facility, $300,000 buy in (mostly reimbursed when you die), but $6,000 a month , which included food, care, guaranteed admittance to next level of care when needed, etc. etc.
Guess what, as he became more fragile during the last year of his life, he did not want to move to next level, so we chose to have help come to him. So 18 hours a day, at $20 an hour wound up costing about another $130,000 the final year. Adding that to the monthly of $6,000 totaled about $200,000. So not the amount Orman shelled out, and it was for the final year, not seven years, but this is not an unusual scenario. I guess I am trying to point out that the longer you live, there is a good chance the money is going to begin flying out the window. And it is nice to have it!
A Millionaire Next Door says
I’ve been a student of personal finance, business, and investing for over 20 years now. I was never a fan of hers. I did buy one CD of hers in late 90s after hearing a buzz about her and could not finish it. It was very vanilla with simple generic rules of thumb, no real meat or insights. I realized that she had not actually “done it” but was simply selling materials by just stating general rules of thumb and adding her upbeat flair to it. I have not heard this podcast she’s on and probably won’t but wanted to give my 2 cents on her. I won’t bash her as she has a following but she’s more of a motivational speaker than a finance expert. Kudos to her, she’s carved out a very successful niche in selling books, CDs, DVDs, and seminars. I’ve always stated, I’d rather learn from someone who has actually “done it” even if they didn’t finish high school than from a polished, educated ‘expert’ who says all the right things but lacks actually experience and know how.
JC says
Cheeky post š
I can agree that she’s not one that I pay much attention to. I couldn’t stand listening to her berate people and espouse her “knowledge”. She falls into the same category as every other self-help personality with their huge smiling face plastered on the cover of a book. For those of you that are Family Guy fans, you’ll understand when I say “wish it, want it, do it”.
Arrgo says
Doing part time jobs or side hustles to bring in at least some income can be a good strategy. Or even working your full time job a bit longer if things are good. I see it as a bit of an insurance policy, a boost to your SS, and allows you to at least add to your IRA’s.
Ezekiel says
I’ll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJh25-sO98
Mr Mojo Risin says
I know of a guy who FIREd, lived off his rental real estate investments for a few years, got bored, and is now the transportation director for a local school system. The job gives him something to do when he’s not managing his portfolio/investments.
The point is that everybody defines FIRE differently. He gets to work all day with kids and feels he’s making a difference in their lives. One size does not fit all.
Wealthy Doc says
I would never look to Suze for expert financial advice. She lacks the credentials, training, or knowledge.
She is a media personality. That’s why Paula interviewed her. Paula wanted media attention. (I’m not trying to disparage Paula here mind you. Paula is a Goddess in my eyes!). Suze wanted free advertising for her “come back” post-retirement. Suze got millions of dollars of free publicity which promoted her brand and her new book. All those with FIRE blogs who rant against her only help her cause further.
She is not a moron, but a master. We could all learn from her.
Paper Tiger (aka MI 27) says
So, I am going to ignore the whole Suze Orman discussion. The main person Suze Orman ever helped is Suze Orman. She is an entertainer, far more than a reliable financial advisor so I just remind myself of that and move on.
However, for the uneducated or ill-informed, I think the FIRE acronym contributes to its own problem. When people hear “Retired Early,” they think beaches, bridge, and golf. The early pioneers of FIRE espoused accumulating enough wealth early in life to quit your job and do whatever you want. That portrays a much different picture than what most of us really believe FIRE really means.
I think we should change the acronym and let “RE” mean “RE”-Assess. When you reach FIRE, you now get to re-assess your life around what you want to do and not what you have to do because of money. I think that is what we are really striving for. There is a great book out there called “Halftime” and the essence of the book is that we spend the first half of our lives chasing success and the second half of our lives chasing significance. This is what FIRE means to me; work hard to achieve FI in the first half of your life and get yourself to a point where the second half of your life can be about how you help others and what kind of legacy you want to leave behind, all while enjoying and getting the most out of life from the things that bring you real joy and happiness.
Paper Tiger (aka MI 27) says
The third paragraph, the second sentence should have said, “When you reach FIRE, you now get to re-assess your life around “what is important to you,” and not what you have to do because of money.”
Kristy says
Very good statements!
And thanks for adding that tip above about Lincoln LTC insurance. I plan to look into it.
Using Christine Benz’ bucket system as an outline, I’ve been evaluating our future and how to label our funds & needs. I’ve designated one account for LTC, and plan to fund one month’s nursing care $ each year in this account. (we are 55 so hopefully LTC is a long way off). Two in college that we are cash flowing; down to last semester for one; 7 for the other– I save every dollar we can towards FIRE!
Paper Tiger (aka MI 27) says
Thanks Kristy, re: Lincoln Financial, they also allow you to put down 50K, instead of 100K, but of course, the amounts available for LTC coverage go down accordingly. The numbers they showed me looked pretty good but, for many folks, committing that much illiquid capital upfront can be problematic.
They do have month to month offerings as well so they can pretty much tailor something to your needs.
MarjiHK says
I was on one of those after hours Oprah webcasts in winter 2009 after the financial crisis. I didnāt have any debt but the point I was making was about the individuality of āwantā vs āneedā spending. She ripped into me after even suggesting a previous caller who loved Fantasy Football could be perceived as a need (ie – it was his social circle/support). So much so that Oprah addressed me directly to soften her. I left it up to my friends to characterize her treatment. Another thought that doesnāt get enough discussion is that if you own your house (or island I guess?) at retirement – expenses are much lower! Thanks for posting ESI!
Phillip says
When I listened to the full podcast, outside of her ridiculous comments, the thing that stuck out with me is her over-emphasis on protecting yourself from negative “what-ifs” like long-term care, accidents, etc. She argues that if you are not working a full time job with benefits, a disaster will ruin you. You only live once … FIRE folks make a calculated decision as to when and how to FIRE vs continue working traditional full-time jobs for security and future wealth. And for those that were protected by full-time job benefits, did Suzy share any of stories on how the insurance companies try to screw you when you try to collect? Her viewpoint was so biased, she sounded like a bad insurance salesperson.
gene says
Suze Orman is clearly out of touch with her numbers as they relate to the majority of people.
HOWEVER, she did have an underlying important theme that maybe what people think is enough doesn’t provide enough cushion for life’s unpredictable curveballs. ESI summarized this well in his “It wasn’t all bad” section.
I predict a lot of “lean FIRE” people will eventually have to go back to work because they didn’t give themselves enough margin for error. The job/profession that they trained for or are best at may no longer be available at that time.
As a physician, I see a lot of seniors living on a fixed income and it’s sad to see them barely scraping by in their “golden years.” The numbers that some “lean FIRE” people throw out aren’t too far off from these seniors. So I think there is value in Orman’s underlying message. You don’t necessarily need her numbers, but a little more is a little better!
Cooper says
One would think that a “financial expert” would have heard of insurance. Various types of insurance would cover getting hit by a car, cancer, long term care, etc.
The majority of people live within their means. Apparently Suze never considered lowering one’s expenses in order to live on what you have. If Suze were to somehow lose her wealth, would she still live on a private island, fly on her private jet and do anything that she desires? No, of course not, she would no longer be able to afford to do so.
I may be wrong but I just don’t believe that Suze Orman studies or even thinks things out before speaking. She is too busy telling people that they need Suze Orman software and Suze Orman books and a Suze Orman t-shirt and a Suze Orman hat and Suze Orman sunglasses, ad infinitum.
DS says
Suze was outrageous on the podcast so she could get publicity. Mission accomplished.
Xrayvsn says
Very well said John. I like the concept of plaque reading describing how journalism is done today.
Suze likely accomplished she wanted and made her name appear all over the internet. Publicity, good or bad, is still good for a celebrity as it will likely drive sales of whatever they are promoting.
I did not know she did a partial retraction until you pointed it out so I agree that was a bit of a redeeming gesture. But she still comes off as being in an ivory tower without a true pulse of what is going on
Jo says
I am of a great age (77) and I agree very much with the caveats written by ESI and others.
As I look over my life, I can see the Great Decisions made, not only by myself, but by others that have shaped my life.
#1 my parents and grandparents who believed in education. At times when people left after school, we were encouraged to go to college to earn a meaningful degree that would lead to a good job.
#2 House ownership was considered desirable.
#3 We were expected to look after ourselves. Home cooking etc.
#4 A reliable spouse.
#5 SAVINGS even as little ones.
#6 Keep out of debt. I learned about the doās and donāts of compound interest from my father.
#7 A positive attitude.
I donāt think that it matters about your age when you decide to retire. Just as long as you have done the sums regarding your outgoings such as healthcare. I have always enjoyed good health but in April, I spent a week in hospital due to a cardiac arrest following a pulmonary embolism that no one predicted. Thank goodness for Medicare.
I now thank my parents for insisting on academic excellence because, although I am retired, I am substituting as a math/science teacher when I want to. People with meaningful skills will always get work.
And donāt forget to put back in what you have taken out. The Golden Rule is so important.
Jake Jones says
Very well put. This was a pretty fair look at the things she said that were wrong, but also valuable points (like inflation). I have to say though, it is pretty crazy to say you HATE something without doing any research. Saying “any” isn’t even an exaggeration in my opinion, I found the information she used in her apology in my first google query about FIRE.
GenX FIRE says
The FIRE philosophy is a way of living that is superior to the alternatives. The idea is to spend less, save more, and to have a plan. How is this bad? It doesn’t matter if you actually do retire early. It doesn’t matter if you never truly get financial independence. Regardless of what happens in you life, you will be better prepared. That is what she doesn’t get.
When I was first talking to my wife about this, she got upset and nervous. She thought I wanted to retire, and completely stop working. After that, I started calling it my downshift. I will down shift from my stressful full time job to contract work, or something like it, so that even though I will earn less, I will have more free time and be happier. That’s my plan. I think this is what Suzie’s “change of heart” comment was about.
JWS says
I would be curious to see what her viewership figures look like and whether or not she views the rise of the FIRE movement as being competitive to her business. My guess is that every one person that becomes more educated on this topic elsewhere, represents one less potential consumer of her product.
Zed says
She didn’t really admit she was wrong. She just threw someone else under the bus that gave her “bad information”. One of her staff reading the plaques to her perhaps.
Rohan says
She’s a expert social media marketer. I’ll give her that! but if she thinks you will get bored in early retirement, I don’t think she has understood the true concept of FIRE>
Mark says
I had heard her say donāt retire to age 70, but I never heard the way. This explains it. When she said donāt retire until 70, my first reaction was what? I am not working until age 70.
She is a sales person, and she is good at that. She doesnāt need to retire. She has the best side hustle job out there.
Financial Pilgrimage says
I canāt decide if she should be shunned for being so off the mark, or celebrated for purposely creating all of this publicity. Probably the latter, which is the result of the click-bait culture that we live in. Sigh.
Richard says
Well, she was an early voice, pre-Recession. I heard a story about her years ago, basically an interview prep prior to broadcast that went straight to hell. As it turns out, she’s as disagreeable and mercurial as most serious players and definitely likes to control her image. In this case, she came back late to the scene with a bat, bashed around and found some new market share. The FIRE community isn’t hers, but I daresay she got everyone’s attention, so yeah, mission accomplished. Knowing what I know of divorce or serious medical issues, however, I don’t think her numbers are that far off. Ten million for her, sure, island life and no cutbacks, but perhaps four million for you if you’re married and want to keep it nice. Basically full cash coverage AND insurance, since the latter can’t be trusted. I’m also skeptical of the bargain approach–are you sure you want less than an LPN or RN looking after your loved ones? I’ve met my share of sketchy physicians, dialysis techs, and so on; there’s no guarantee of anything, really, but I would always opt to chance it by trading up, not down. Out here in glossy, real estate-wild WA state, money flying all over the place, the medical underbelly is decidedly ugly. Most recently in the news, horror stories regarding the incredible error rate and hastened deaths at glistening, seemingly top-notch mental health/aging/behavioral health facilities. You’ll need to shop around, watch it all like a hawk, and it won’t be cheap. Myself, I’m headed a toward a fraction of what’s required, so while we probably won’t lose the house or the modest nest egg, it will be a bounce down to Medicaid or another private arrangement. The gf is clear on that, her own situation, and I’ve provided clear padding for her via life insurance and smooth financial transfers outside of probate. Everyone should take a serious look; I’ll give Orman credit for that, talking it up, flashy and offensive as she is.