I have always been a math guy. Yes, I did well in school in all subjects, but math was always my preferred area. So easy. So logical. So fun. (If school can be seen as fun).
This love for math is what got me started on the path to being an accountant. I loved the way everything balanced — it was awesome!
I found it to be so much fun that in high school I finished the normally year-long class of Accounting 1 (or whatever it was called) in four months.
The second half of the year I worked on my own with the teacher’s supervision and finished Accounting 2 while the rest of the class struggled with the first course.
I was Mr. Francis’s prize student — which felt good since he was also the only teacher to ever have given me a “C” (for typing class the year earlier — after that I learned never to take a class requiring skill or coordination).
My love for math (transferred to accounting) is the reason I started my college career as an accounting major. I stuck it out for two years, taking all the way up through intermediate accounting and cost accounting, before realizing it was a terrible bore. Shortly thereafter I also abandoned my plan to become a lawyer (can you imagine how much I could have made as a lawyer AND an accountant?) for the same reason — too boring.
So I became a business administration student, graduated, and went to grad school to get an MBA in, of all things, marketing — which is probably about as far away from accounting and law as you can get.
But I still loved math/numbers, something that served me well despite the fact that I was in what’s considered a more soft-skill discipline. I could talk to the finance guys like no other marketing person and as I moved up (and especially when I became president of a company) the math/numbers/accounting background served me well.
No Love for English
On the other end of the spectrum was English/language, the opposite of math.
I did well in the subject because I worked at it, but I didn’t enjoy it.
It’s kind of ironic because many of my successes in high school were centered around more language-related efforts — leading roles in the school play twice, several state awards in speech competitions, and a lackluster, though enjoyable, career as a debater (negative side, of course.)
And in the end, these skills transferred to some real-world wins. By the time I got to grad school I was so comfortable in front of people that every presentation I did received an “A”. I even completed one hour-long presentation for my entire team when they were too swamped with finals to do their 15-minute segments.
As I transition into my career you can imagine how well speaking in public worked for a marketing guy (and even more as I moved up). It’s no wonder Warren Buffett would pay 50% more to someone who can speak in public — I saw the value of it first hand.
This said, my nemesis was always spelling (couldn’t someone have invented spellcheck 40 years ago)? I somehow managed to win many a spelling bee (do they still have those? We had them every week in elementary school) but it was often by a combination of some skill and the luck of the word draw. It was not easy or enjoyable for me.
I did like reading though and read quite often from an early age, something I continued throughout my life.
The Rules of English
The one thing about English that I did like was the rules.
The rules provided a math-like sanity for an otherwise crazy subject.
I liked that the English language (at least the American version of it) was composed of never-changing rules, handed down through the ages by some sort of English super council that set guidelines in a once-for-all series of decisions. From there, the rest of us simply followed the rules and we’d be ok.
Since I’m a rule-follower from way back, this sort of “here’s how you do this every single time” sort of thinking appealed to me. I liked that the language was fixed and guided by rules we could all learn and follow.
Then I started writing.
This is when I found out everything I thought was true about never-changing language rules was incorrect.
English Changes
Contrary to my “follow the rules” thinking I discovered that the English language (and probably all languages) is similar to a living organism, that changes and adapts throughout its life. Yes, there are rules, but those rules morph over time (usually slowly) and eventually are replaced by other rules. They are not once-for-all standards but more of a “rule for now” which may stand the test of time or may not.
To add a bit of clarity, let’s take an example of what I mean.
One change that has been making the rounds as of late is the use of the word “they.”
Back in my day (when the U.S. had just declared independence from England — ok, not that far back, but a long time ago for sure), “they” was a plural pronoun used to describe a group of people. As such, when you used “they” you used verbs that matched a plural noun. Examples of plural versus singular options:
- They swim/he swims
- They run/she runs
- They jump/he jumps
However, these days “they” is increasingly being used to describe a person, male or female. A person, by definition, is singular. So we have a plural pronoun used as a singular pronoun. An example:
The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay. (from Wikipedia, noted below)
As you see, “patient” is singular, so to match this the old-school would have either “he” or “she” instead of “they.” But today many people use “they” to mean the patient could be a male or female (or if it’s unknown).
This sort of stuff throws people for a loop (of course) as some use the language one way and others use it another. This causes a big debate back and forth. Eventually one way becomes more standard and is used in the majority of cases, thus becoming the closest thing to a “rule” we have in English. (That said, I think the Oxford comma debate will rage on forever.)
Apparently the use of “they” as plural has been around longer than I knew, though even that is up for debate, so who knows how far it really spread. Plus I grew up in Iowa and since we were always the last to hear of things, “they” as a singular pronoun had definitely not made it to my small town by the time I hit high school.
Anyway, for those curious, here’s a quick summary of “they” in singular usage:
Singular they is the use in English of the pronoun they or its inflected or derivative forms, them, their, theirs, and themselves (or themself), as an epicene (gender-neutral) singular pronoun. It typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent, as in sentences such as:
“Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?”
“The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay.”
“But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources.”
The singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since then, though it has become the target of criticism since the late-19th century. Its use in formal English has become more common with the trend toward gender-neutral language, though most style guides continue to proscribe it.
In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals has been promoted for those who do not identify as either male or female.
There you have it. A “rule” I thought was cast in stone is obviously not.
The Retirement Police
The word “retirement” is going through a change of its own, and let me tell you it’s not going to change without a massive fight.
You see, there’s a self-appointed group of definition experts that know what retirement means and are sworn to defend this meaning until their dying breaths.
This group is known affectionately as the Retirement Police within the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) community.
The Retirement Police have the sworn duty to defend the definition of retirement wherever it’s being misused and it most certainly is being misused by many (most?) in the FIRE community. More on that below.
What is the one true definition of retirement according to the Retirement Police? I’ll risk their wrath by attempting to list it — if these aren’t the exact words, they are certainly close:
The ending of all work of any kind that generates any sort of income.
In other words, earn a penny or more doing any sort of activity and it immediately disqualifies you from calling yourself retired.
I’m no stranger to visits from the Retirement Police (though they show up here less than you might expect — most of them flock to social media where they can hunt in packs).
On my post titled Big Tax Savings due to Early Retirement the Retirement Police (or perhaps a troll) hit me with this comment:
Interesting articles, but this person is not retired. Managing web sites and writing, owning rental property is also work unless totally hands off. Seem like he is working part time.
This commenter implied that it’s ok to earn extra income as long as you do nothing to earn it, a close relative and one standard variation from the definition above.
As you might imagine, I found a lot of humor in this comment. I’m thinking a book titled “How to Make Money Doing Absolutely Nothing” would do quite well. š
Definition of Retirement
You may be wondering, “What is the official definition of retirement?”
If you look up the definition in the various online dictionaries, you get a close but also diverse set of options. Here’s what Dictionary.com offers:
noun
1. the act of retiring, withdrawing, or leaving; the state of being retired.
2. the act of retiring or of leaving one’s job, career, or occupation permanently, usually because of age:
I’m looking forward to my retirement from teaching.
3. the portion of a person’s life during which a person is retired:
What will you do in retirement?
4. a pension or other income on which a retired person lives:
His retirement is barely enough to pay the rent.
5. removal of something from service or use:
retirement of the space shuttle fleet.
Moving along, Merriam-Webster adds this as a point of difference:
Withdrawal from one’s position or occupation or from active working life
The Cambridge Dictionary goes with this:
The point at which someone stops working, esp. because of having reached a particular age or because of ill health, or the period in someoneās life after the person has stopped working
Not stopping with those, I googled “retirement definition” and reviewed several of the top results. Here’s one from Investopedia:
Retirement is when a person chooses to leave the workforce. The concept of full retirement ā being able to permanently leave the workforce later in life ā is relatively new, and for the most part only culturally widespread in first-world countries. Many developed countries have some type of national pension or benefits system (i.e. the United States’ Social Security system) to help supplement retirees’ incomes.
Next I found this take from Wikipedia:
Retirement is the withdrawal from one’s position or occupation or from one’s active working life. A person may also semi-retire by reducing work hours.
An increasing number of individuals are choosing to put off this point of total retirement, by selecting to exist in the emerging state of pre-tirement.
Many people choose to retire when they are eligible for private or public pension benefits, although some are forced to retire when bodily conditions no longer allow the person to work any longer (by illness or accident) or as a result of legislation concerning their position.
Ok, so now they are muddying the waters with semi-retirement and pre-tirement.
Wikipedia doesn’t define semi-retirement but they do offer this for pre-tirement:
The neologism pre-tirement describes the emergence of a new working state, positioned between the traditional states of employment and retirement. The word is a portmanteau word, coming from the prefix “pre” and the word “retirement”. The state is being found primarily in first world economies, with aging populations.
A “Pre-tireree” will continue to create economic wealth and/or contribute to the generation of knowledge by research, likely on a part-time or reduced hours basis.
Some “Pre-tirerees” use the period to give back by providing unpaid social support. This form of unpaid work creates economic benefit, by allowing taxes to be focused on other wealth creating or protecting activities, but relies on the existence of sufficient financial resource.
You can see that things are already getting very gray (versus black and white) — and we haven’t even moved past basic definitions. However, this sort of non-compliance does not stop the Retirement Police. They forge ahead defending the truth as they know it!
Retirement Definition Changing
But the Retirement Police are fighting a losing battle. In that same group of Google results for “retirement definition”, a couple of very interesting articles made the top 10.
The first is from CBS News who asks “how do you define retirement?” Some highlights:
Nowadays, some people who transition from full-time to part-time work might still call themselves “retired.” Variations on this theme of working in retirement include:
Part-time or seasonal work at your same employer or the same field
Changing your field of work
Working indefinitely, as long as you can
A bridge job for a few years that enables you to delay drawing down Social Security benefits and allows your savings to grow
Self-employment at a business that interests you
This phenomenon has spawned an effort to retire the word “retirement” and find a new name for this period of life. Candidates include renewment, aspirement, financial independence, rewirement, rest-of-life, second beginnings, financial freedom, and new chapter. A few years back, there was even a contest for a new name. Some of the more creative entries included American Idle, Seventh Inning Stretch and Near Death Experience (if you haven’t guessed already, these didn’t win). Life 2.0 was the lucky winner of that contest.
Whatever you call this time of your life, a common theme for many people is improving your relationship with your work life. For some, that means not working at all. For others, it means finding work that’s more meaningful to you or working fewer hours. The first step in this journey is to create a vision for the rest of your life that can help guide your decisions.
I was completely out of the loop on the contest or I could have offered some ideas. Life 2.0 seems lame in my opinion but no one made me the definition king.
Still it’s quite interesting that this article popped up so high in the Google rankings. It shows that change is certainly on the way. And the Retirement Police are NOT going to like it I tell you!
The second post was from the Huffington Post (written by none other than Arianna Huffington herself), was titled “Itās Time to Retire Our Definition of Retirement”, and was actually written in 2014 (which is about 200 years ago in internet years — where were the Retirement Police when this blasphemy was written?) Some highlights:
To withdraw, to go away, to retreat: These are the literal definitions of āretire,ā but, increasingly, they fail to accurately describe the possibilities of modern retirement. If we were choosing a word today for what life looks like as we hit our mid-60s, 70s and 80s, it seems unlikely that weād land on āretirement.ā While these years bring many changes, for a growing number of people, this time of life is about anything but withdrawal or retreat.
So what to go with? āSecond actā? F. Scott Fitzgerald notwithstanding, most people have long entered, and exited, multiple second acts long before they hit retirement age. So āthird actā? āNext actā? āFinal actā? (Much too morbid.) āEvolutionā? āThe shiftā? āMetamorphosisā? āTransformationā? Theyāre at least closer, because retirement now is mostly about change. And it may not look all that different from what immediately precedes it.
Just as the binary division of our day-to-day lives into āworkā and ānon-workā has broken down, retirement no longer means simply ending a long career. In the workplace thereās a growing movement to think more holistically about our time ā a realization that our productivity, creativity, work time, leisure time, sleep, mental health, physical health and general well-being are all of a piece.
The same principles that allow us to thrive in our daily work lives can also help us thrive in retirement, or whatever we call it. Just as a productive workday depends on how we prepare ourselves for it (for example, by getting enough sleep and taking time to recharge ourselves in our off-hours), a productive, meaningful and purposeful retirement depends on what we put into it.
Quite interesting to see these thoughts shared among the most popular posts on defining retirement. They certainly hint at the fact that the change is well underway.
FIRE Community Creating Problems
The FIRE community has been adding to the Retirement Police problems. In fact, it’s the FIRE community that’s probably speeding along the change in what it means to be retired.
Before FIRE, there wasn’t really that much of an issue. People generally agreed on what retirement meant. So the Retirement Police mostly kept underground.
Then along came the FIRE movement.
At first, all was well as the movement started with those who generally did stop all work and didn’t get paid.
As the FIRE concept spread and people began to put their own spin on it (especially bloggers! Yikes!) they did the unthinkable: they started making money. AND they kept saying they were “retired”.
These two are mutually exclusive to the Retirement Police, so they sprang into action, correcting these miscreants at every turn and upholding the purity of retirement.
But the FIRE community fought back.
One great example of this was in the book Work Optional which I detailed in Defining Retirement.
In the book the author quotes sociologist Robert S. Weiss who defines retirement three different ways:
(1) economically, by the fact that you donāt need to work for money;
(2) psychologically, by your own determination that you feel retired; and
(3) sociologically, according to whether society sees you as retired.
This must have really thrown the Retirement Police for a loop! Not only is he suggesting THREE definitions for retirement (or at least versions of it) when the Retirement Police only recognize one, but he has the audacity to say 1) people who are “retired” could still earn money and 2) people had some personal say-so in defining their own version of retirement.
This is simply not acceptable to the Retirement Police!
As the debate has continued back and forth, the FIRE community has continued to grapple with the definition themselves.
Some talk about “retirement from your career.”
Some suggest “no longer having to work” as retirement (versus choosing to work).
Some separate the “FI” part from the “RE” part.
And some simply don’t seem to care. They have the ability to laugh at the Retirement Police and move on.
Yes, my friends, the definition of retirement is changing. Changing quite rapidly as a matter of fact. But we aren’t there yet.
My Contribution to the Debate
While all this has been going on, I’ve been dealing with this issue myself.
It rears it’s ugly head now and then, and I often mention it in my retirement updates — how I’ve struggled in telling people I’m “retired.”
This is because I know what it means for me, but they don’t get it. I’m dealing with the newer, changing definition of retirement while most still have the old concept of retirement in mind.
But I could clearly see the change coming, which is why in my Retirement Interviews I ask people the following:
How do you define retirement?
I do this because I know the definition is changing and I want to hear from real people — you know, the ones who have actually done it — how they define it.
Plus their responses have the great side effect of driving the Retirement Police crazy. š
By the way, this seems to be a great place to note that one thing many of the Retirement Police aren’t is…retired.
This seems highly ironic to me, that a group of people who aren’t even living by the definition they espouse are telling those of us who are retired (or whatever we call it) that they are experts in something they have not experienced themselves.
My Thoughts on Retirement
I’ve been thinking about this subject for some time and here’s my current thinking on it:
1. I do acknowledge that it’s confusing.
After all, if someone is “retired” and yet still working (many for themselves), does that mean all self-employed people are retired?
Or is it the fact that they do not need the money that then classifies them as “retired”?
So I get it. It’s not clear.
2. It will sort itself out.
We’re in a transition period where retirement used to mean one thing and is now in the process of meaning another.
It will take some time but eventually it will work itself out and there will be one definition that most people agree upon.
Until then, I think we all need to realize we’re in the midst of change and relax a bit.
3. My own personal definition of retirement is being sorted out.
Five years ago I would have defined it as one thing.
Today it’s something else.
A few years from now it will likely be different.
So I’m in the transition zone with you all.
4. For now, I’d let individuals define retirement for themselves.
For me retirement means I quit working at the 28-year career I had developed.
It also means that I have the right to do whatever I want with my time (which may be the ultimate definition of retirement — having freedom to do whatever you want). That may or may not include earning money doing this or that.
I would not make income earning a litmus test for whether or not someone is retired. In fact, an argument could be made that to retire well you need to have extra income being generated, and maybe even multiple sources of it.
Thoughts for the Retirement Police
I want to close with a few notes to the Retirement Police:
1. The English language changes.
See above. The language is evolving. Get used to it. I had to.
2. The word retirement is changing in definition.
I know you hate this but it’s true.
To deny it will just make you look like fools as it morphs and yet you hold on to, defend, and support an ever-increasingly outdated definition.
3. What’s the big deal anyway?
If someone wants to call themself (see what I did there with a version of “them”? — you can teach an old dog new tricks!) retired based on their (again!) own definition, what’s the harm with that?
Does there really need to be any strife over this? Just chi-lax a bit…
4. No one made you the king of the dictionary or of other people’s lives.
If you can’t relax, maybe you can realize that you’re often being jerks.
Give it a rest — you have no authority here.
Ok, that’s my take on defining retirement and the Retirement Police.
Now’s your chance. Anyone have any thoughts on this issue?
Ken Williams says
Well written! Witty, with a tinge of snarkiness š
Razorback 14 says
Again, good stuff here. Thank you.
After reading this piece, I think I fall in to the category of āwho cares?ā
Who cares what the āretirement policeā say, think or do? Iām not really sure I could understand their logic anyway āā
I choose to laugh at them ā- every step of the way.
For me, itās my time, my way (s) and my life.
As always, Iāll figure things out and move on down a road that makes sense to me and to my family.
My life as it relates to MY definition of retirement:
āJust keep things simple, move forward in learning how to help others and apply all parts of ESI ā- and know that a higher power is truly in control ā- ā
Also, Iām learning how to be the best grandfather (Poppy) possible ā- currently, I have three grands (ages 5, 2 1/2 and 100 days ā another one coming in November) ā- yeah! Life is good and so fun!!
1st retirement
Date: 12/31/2012
Age: 57
Job: educational leader – over 30 yrs of work as a teacher, principal, superintendent of schools ā
2nd retirement
Date: 12/31/2020
Age: 65
Job: President of an energy company
Maybe , one more run ā- proposed plan
3rd retirement
Date: 12/31/2025
Age: 70
Job: consulting work ā Helping a small company learn how to grow, help others and to prosper greatly ā –
Thanks again for all you do to help us learn, think and to move to action.
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
Razorback, I would say your words accurately depict the traditional view of retirement. In your message you discuss three different career choices and categorize their endings as Retirements #1, #2 and “3. You retired from your career as an educator and then unretired to become President of a company, retired the second time and now you are contemplating a third career to which you will unretire from #2 and retire again from #3 in 2025. At that point, it appears you will consider yourself fully retired and free to pursue other aspects of life that don’t necessarily involve a working career choice.
The Retirement Police see no reason to issue you a citation š
Razorback 14 says
Great ā- each part of each step (1,2,3) included and will include a formal āretirementā type of process.
Actually, Iāve been able to experience a sort of Pre-Retirement in each of my careers and will do the same in and around my final career as a consultantā-
Step 1 (career 1) ā- pre-retirement plan was built in and started almost 2 years before I actually fully retired from education (I was very lucky here) – lots of free time for grandkids
Step 2. (Career 2) ā
Pre-retirement plan was built in to the job when I took it. (So very grateful and feel fortunate) ā- even more time for travel and grandkids – all while working full time.
Step 3. (Career 3) ā- when and if I hit this path, Iām already thinking of how I will position my pre-retirement plan ā- so, Iāll even more time to travel, to learn how to hang out and of course, to have even more time for my grandkids. Will probably focus on more of a part-time role ā- dealing with leadership development š
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
I’m with you brother and have had some similar experiences through my own pursuits. Best of luck to you and may all your plans meet with great success!
Razorback 14 says
Thank you.
Bernd Doss says
Thank you for providing a great opportunity to learn the best ways to make words mean something. Who, I argue, has the power to become the sole arbitrator of the world of words, and their meaning? Retirement is in the eye of the beholder.
Xrayvsn says
Honestly it doesn’t matter what someone thinks of my categorization when I do retire. If money still comes in (via my blog or anything else) it still does not take away from the fact that at that I would have have retired from my main medical career.
I think FI-tirement would be a good moniker.
MI-96 says
I’ve had this discussion with individuals myself. Truly a discussion and not an argument, debate or heated in any way. Of course, the other people in the discussion were still working. In any event, it’s been on my mind since very early on when I made the same characterization of “retirement” as the relatively shallow quote that was given to you to open this article.
The problem I have found when delving into the “R” word debate is most of the people who try to idealistically define the term do so from one of two points of view, and both of them are from a subjective and judgmental point of view:
1) The individual can’t get their arms around the word because they are so far away from “retirement” and it’s easier to say “you aren’t retired” if you are still having to work. To them, it’s a violation of the term because you’re still working and drawing income … they very opposite of what they are trying to escape.
2) The individual is completely retired and has no other side hustle or interest(s) which can earn money so it’s easier to label others as “not retired”. It makes them feel better about themselves as they earned a life in which they don’t “have”, or don’t “choose, to do that.
My own definition and I don’t care if others agree with it or not. It has been forged from years in the work force, which I am still in for another 2.5 months, and planning my own 2.0:
Retirement for me is: Complete freedom of choice
It’s about not having to do anything, but instead, choosing what you wish to do. By this definition, even if I reentered the work force in a part time or full time capacity, I could still be retired as long as I can choose to withdraw at any time. Manage a vacation rental? Sure. Side hustle? Sure. As long as I get to choose. It’s about that operative and empowering word: Choice.
Just because you are “retired” doesn’t mean you are not allowed to engage in other activities, whether they draw an income or not. To that end, when others have been asking “what are you going to do in retirement?” I have been saying: “The “R” word really isn’t in my vocabulary, I’m calling it my 2.0″.
The problem is most can’t really get their arms around that statement. At the root of it, it still means I’m financially secure enough such that I’m exiting the working world and the monthly paycheck/benefits. The addition or subtraction of income streams when you exit the working world doesn’t invalidate the word “retirement”. Arguably, it can enhance it, make it more vibrant or less restrictive. But as long as I get to choose, it’s MY retirement.
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
As a card-carrying member of the Retirement Police and because a good debate needs at least two sides, I would like to provide a different point of view. First, let me say that overall, this was well written and thought-provoking, most of which I did not find all that objectionable. However, the following did draw my attention:
“2. The word retirement is changing in definition.
I know you hate this but itās true.
To deny it will just make you look like fools as it morphs and yet you hold on to, defend, and support an ever-increasingly outdated definition.”
First, I don’t think anyone is foolish simply because they may have a differing point of view. Second, the “definition” of retirement is NOT changing. That word and its meaning have been around long before anyone here or the FIRE movement and is historically embedded forever. What IS changing are the views and perceptions of the definition of retirement. What we really are grappling with is what do we wind up calling the new world view on retirement once we define it.
Some people view Financial Independence as synonymous with retirement. I would say these words are not identical twins but they are first cousins as elements of both exist within each definition. The traditional view of retirement is that one ends career pursuits in order to pursue other things in life. Have you ever heard anyone say, “I will get to that when I retire.” The FI view is that one has reached a point where they no longer MUST generate an income through work to support themselves but have the choice to continue to work or do whatever they want to do because, financially speaking, they can.
As you said, this whole discussion is still evolving and over time, we will come up with a new definition to describe it. However, as a purist, I would just ask that when you come up with the new definition, please come up with a new name as well because “retirement’ is already taken š
ESI says
Haha! I knew you would “like” this one! I bet you still use he/she instead of “they” as well. š
Let me tell you a story and see what you think of it:
Jim was a successful businessman. In his spare time, he loved cycling. He used it as his main form of exercise, participated in group rides with the local club, and even entered a few races.
As the need arose, Jim started fixing his bikes to make them safer, more reliable, and faster. He also found that tinkering on bikes in his garage was very enjoyable. It helped him relieve stress that often hounded him at work.
Over time, Jim decided he wanted to quit his job because reading ESI Money had made him so wealthy (LOL!). So he gave up is 35-year career.
This allowed Jim to spend even more time cycling — which he loved. It also gave him more time to work on his bikes, something else he loved.
One day at a club event, a friend asked Jim to fix the friend’s bike. Jim obliged and the friend raved at how the bike was better than new. The friend told his friends about Jim’s way with a bike wrench and soon Jim had an ever-increasing number of people asking him to fix their bikes.
Jim was in heaven! Now he not only got to work on his bikes, but he got to fix the bikes of others as well. It was his dream come true.
Not too far into his expanded repair hobby, someone insisted on paying him. Jim didn’t want (or need) the money, but the other man insisted. Jim had done better work than most and deserved at least partial pay for his work according to the man. So Jim thanked him and accepted.
This interaction got Jim to thinking — should he be charging for his efforts? He loved the work and would do it for free with no problem, but was there some value that he should place on it simply for his time? Besides, he didn’t want to spend all his time repairing bikes and perhaps starting to charge would keep the repair requests to a reasonable amount.
So Jim instituted a basic pricing policy for his work. To his surprise, this made him even more popular with area cyclists as they could see what a great value Jim was delivering versus bike shops with much larger overhead costs. This benefited Jim as well since he ended up receiving more difficult and challenging bike repair requests which he found much more interesting to spend time on.
Over the next few years Jim started to earn a decent amount with his repair efforts. In year one he made $5,000, in year 2 he earned $10,000, and in the third year his earnings were up to $15,000.
Jim still loved working on bikes and enjoyed every minute of his efforts. He was so thankful he had left his job and his only regret was that he hadn’t done it sooner.
Would you say Jim is retired? Why or why not?
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
I would say Jim achieved Financial Independence which allowed him to do something he loved, not because he had to but because he wanted to. This was my story. I achieved FI after a 36-year corporate career and decided I wanted to try my hand as an entrepreneur, in a startup, because I always wanted to work for myself, not because I needed to but because I wanted to. It was very fulfilling but also a lot of hard work and now, after 4 years, I am retiring for good and looking forward to chasing pursuits that have more meaning apart from my work-related activities. In many ways, I think retirement and what you do in it, tends to be based more about how it makes you feel. For me, this is a pursuit of non-work activities and finding ways to be significant to others.
I have a 20-year old daughter in college who is home for the summer. We just went on vacation and spent a fair amount of time discussing her life plan. My advice to her was, “don’t focus on a plan to retire early, focus on a plan to achieve financial independence as early as possible” to which she asked me, “what’s the difference?” My reply, “it is much easier to retire early if you have achieved FI than it is to try and retire early if you haven’t.”
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
John, here is a question back for you. They say if you love what you do, you never work a day in your life. Does that mean you can tell everyone you have been retired your entire life? š
ESI says
Haha! So you don’t want to change the definition of “retirement” but you’re ok changing the definition of “work”? š
First of all, I would say I don’t often listen to “they”. They are often wrong and are the Jones-followers that are generally financial laggards. I’m not a big fan of they as a rule.
Second, I don’t think the saying is true. Even if you “love” what you do, it’s still work (by definition, unless you want to change that).
Third, I would say the percent of people who “love” what they do is very, very low (if they did love their work, they would do the same thing when they “retire”.) So we’re using an extreme case to try and define a word, which generally doesn’t work. Definitions change when a large percentage agrees to them.
Fourth, even those who “love” their jobs likely don’t love them more than having all the free time in the world.
Fifth, I never said I “loved” my job. I have said I “liked” it. I wrote a post on this many years ago on my other site. I think I have mentioned it in articles on ESI Money before, but I believe finding a job you “like” is a great balance of enjoyment and financial success (i.e. picking a career that pays well).
I appreciate the banter! Batman can’t be Batman without the Joker. š
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
I’ll keep it real simple. I can’t speak for everyone but the circle I hang with worked hard to achieve a retirement status that involved a more relaxed lifestyle, the ability to dial back their level of stress and enjoy things they dreamed of doing that they simply did not have the time to do when they were working. And, many of us also want to take advantage of the blessings we’ve been given and serve others, with both our time and money, who may not be as fortunate. And yes, when I use the word, “they” it is a reflection of people I know well and have discussed this on frequent occasions. It does not mean it has to apply to everyone and others can weigh in on what retirement means to them.
I understand there are many definitions of retirement but a traditional view from Webster’s says,
“Definition of retirement. 1 a : an act of retiring : the state of being retired. b : withdrawal from one’s position or occupation or from active working life.”
It doesn’t mean everyone has to follow along with a traditional view and certainly, times are changing. I’m not trying to convince anyone else how to feel about what retirement should mean to them but I hope people will at least try to respect my right to my views and opinions even if it differs from theirs.
ESI says
Of course. I respect different points of view even though I disagree with them.
And as you know, I’m a big fan of giving back. I have something really special planned in this area this fall. Stay tuned.
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
I’m not sure we are as far off in our opinions as we might think. Because times have changed managing one’s retirement has to change with the times. I am a baby boomer and both my wife and me benefit from pensions and 401Ks and we will have a shot at getting some social security at some point. People who are 20-30 years younger than us face a different landscape and particularly if one does early retire. They probably won’t have pensions and depending on when they retire, they may not have much SS or the government may make changes that limit what people in the future will be able to get.
All of this means that younger workers will have to adapt which probably does mean continuing to work through their retirements, either with side hustles or second careers, unless of course, they are able to sock enough money away to avoid this need. And yes, some people just want to work because they enjoy it and because they have a passion for it. I’ve certainly heard people say, and I’ve said it myself, “I don’t know if I can completely retire because I feel like I will always want to keep busy and keep a hand in something that I enjoy.”
So in summary, different definitions of retirement can co-exist. There is a traditional view that addresses some of us who cling to the idea that we could enjoy a portion of our lives without work and there is a view that side hustles or second careers are just a natural part of “new retirement” as part of the changing dynamics.
JeffB MI20 says
I am sort of like that. We organzied vacation trips for our friends over the course of the last 10 years. I got ‘released’ from my cubicle prision in April about a year earlier than I had planned. I had already formulated becoming a travel agent and started the process Feb 2019. In April I was sprung from corporate prision and started the business. I went to some training and doing lots of online training. I have a few clients, but nothing big yet, but the wife is still working so I have a few years to ramp this up with the goal to make about $10,000 a year or help pay for travel. I already get good discounts being a TA so, that is good. We had hit our number, but the wife’s mom moved to our town and went into Independent Living and now we need to move her to assisted living due to her dementia getting worse. We can’t quite travel the world yet, but I have ‘unclenched’ the wallet strings and we are doing as much travel as we can this year while we still have a ton of income coming in.
Jim says
For me, retirement is the period in life when the need to make money by working has less control over my life than I do.
Steveark says
Hey, hey, hey! I used life 2.0 in my last blog post and assumed I had made it up myself. Lame indeed! I’ve found that using situational definitions works best. To my hard working friends griping about the salt mines I always say I’m retired. They just hate it! But to my fully retired and bored friends I say I’m a consultant, they hate it too. I just go with the most irritating definition for the person I’m taking to.
ESI says
Haha! I LOVE this!!!!!
Monica says
Stay at home parent. the new retired group. I have been retired for 20 year?. Bill Gates works but does not need the money, he too is retired. Who knew? Many bloggers quit or reduced the blog due to the daily grind of producing a weekly article, sounds like work to me.
I am not a true “retirement police” as you like to say but being a stay at home parent only became known as “retirement” once a bunch of men started doing it and they had to make themselves feel more manly.
JayCeezy says
ESI, when you have >$4 million in the bank, income properties, and time to take two 45-minute walks with your wife each day, you are bullet-proof from the Retirement Police!
My thought is that there have been a few obvious examples of people fronting/bragging and “they” present themselves as something they aren’t. One example comes to mind of a 30-year-old “self-made millionaire” and when the truth came out he had inherited almost $900,000. Another is a guy who claimed to run a ‘hedge fund’ after leaving Wall Street; the truth was he was an assistant that got right-sized, and was ‘managing’ a few hundred thousand for his parents and the parents of his ‘partners’. I could go on, but the common denominator for these exaggerators seems to be that they are selling something, and presenting their qualifications as something other than the full truth.
Last point on Retirement Police; never seen one present their own qualifications, and none of them are retired. Enjoy making them jealous!:)
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
“Last point on Retirement Police; never seen one present their own qualifications, and none of them are retired. Enjoy making them jealous!:)”
Jay, I do consider myself a purist on retirement and for what it’s worth, my story is MI-27. I did start a second career 4 years ago in a startup after leaving a primary career of 36 years. I will be retiring for good in September.
ESI says
Yes, unfortunately there are those who try to present themselves as one thing when really another is the truth. They muddy the waters for us all.
And I agree, most of the Retirement Police are not retired (probably not even close). This makes poking at them even more fun. š
StudMuffin says
My definition of retirement: Doing whatever I WANT to do, instead of what I HAVE to do because I have the financial means to tell someone to pound sand if I want without sacrificing my level of comfort.
I have reached retirement.
ESI says
I like this as well…especially the “pound sand” part! LOL!
ESI says
Here are a couple related pieces on the definition of retirement from my friend JD at Get Rich Slowly:
1. His take on the three definitions of retirement presented above:
https://www.getrichslowly.org/defining-retirement/
2. What early retirement was like in 1957 (based on a Life article):
https://www.getrichslowly.org/early-retirement-life-magazine/
As he pointed out to me: “Note that the early retirees ALL WORK. Nobody involved has a problem calling themselves retired even though they’re working.”
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
“As he pointed out to me: āNote that the early retirees ALL WORK. Nobody involved has a problem calling themselves retired even though theyāre working.ā
I think the term you are looking for is “semi-retired.” š
Buckeyecub says
To me the key is transparency. Provide any idea of where money for living expenses comes from. Not retired but my concern is to prepare for a forced retirement either due to health or whim of employer. I saw this happen to others including my parents … This is the financial independence/ retirement I want to prepare for. If I can work part time or side gig great, but I don’t want to have to.
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
Buckeyecub, I think you are very wise to plan for the unknown. Both my wife and I were laid off from the same company, 2 years apart. I was 55 and she was 53 when we were let go as part of reorganizations. Fortunately, we were well prepared financially to weather that storm but we saw many of our friends who were devastated and struggled for a long time to deal with their circumstances. Unfortunately, loyalty on both sides has been removed in the workplace and layoffs are now commonplace.
Paul says
Great article! It is very confusing! I’m 52 and do not need to work another day in my life, but if I work until 57 I can lock in a pension I don’t need and medical subsidiary that I’ll probably need. So, I’m still not retired but do go to a job that I don’t need to get money I don’t need.
I think the honest answer is that if you are doing things and receive a salary more than a nominal amount of time per week (month?) you are not retired and just part of the part-time workforce. I know not a popular position! Saying “I work but I don’t have to” or I’m “doing what I want not what I have to” means you are still working and not retired…sorry! I just can’t justify the verbal jujitsu!
I’m not pushing the traditional view of retirement, but at some point words have meanings! From a legal point of view, words make up contracts which have specific meanings. We can’t mold them into what our personal beliefs or viewpoints are or bend them into a new interpretation. For retirement, and in my particular case, I would like to retire, but my “pension contract” says age 57 and that I have to receive a salary (which can include paid leave) of 2080 hours a year up until that age. I can call myself “emotionally retired” and “financially retired”, but the reality is that I do stuff for 5 more years so am not “really” retired.
Razorback 14 says
Perfect, Paul.
This speaks to me ā-
Emotionally retired ā-thatās it !!!
Iām 64 yrs old and after reading your post this morningāā Iām thinking, Iāve been emotionally retired for almost 10 years now āā all while still working!!
Financially,, Iāve able to retire for a while, but each and every year, new opportunities creep in to my path and I keep saying yes āā not sure this will change until Iām 70.
Thanks for your insight ā-
ESI says
It’s interesting to me that your agreement stipulates what it means to be working (in both age and hours). That implies that the definitions of “work” and “retirement” are not clear enough in and of themselves so they need to be spelled out. š
BTW, word meanings change and morph over time and to say they “have specific meanings” and “We canāt mold them into what our personal beliefs or viewpoints are or bend them into a new interpretation” ignores the way language evolves as noticed in my points above.
Some words that have either changed or have new meanings (in addition to old ones) over time:
https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/61876/11-words-meanings-have-changed-drastically-over-time
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/10-english-words-that-have-completely-changed-meaning/
Pete says
Maybe we just need a mathematical solution to the definition? If I earn over $1,000 per hour when I’m “working,” then am I retired? So, that time I spend to screen a tenant or rebalance a portfolio; if I can do that quickly enough, then can I be retired? Of course, an F1 driver earns over $1,000 per hour so this will have to be a two-pronged definition at least. Perhaps we can create a database of acceptable ways to spend our time if financially independent?
At the end of the day, even with managing a stock portfolio, I’m still “working” while I mess with that bit to get it to my bank account or whatever. Maybe I’m only retired one I have it set on auto transfer or I pay someone to do it for me?
The above is mostly a joke. I just think of the financial independence bit is all. We’re just too wrapped up in our work it seems. Which reminds me a car or truck or suv commercial I loved. A guy was asked at a party what he does for a living. His mind goes to all the adventures he has with his family while using his truck or suv and really can’t answer the question in the end. I loved that concept that they touched on.
RJF says
My comments DO NOT relate to the Esimoney site.
Iām in the retirement police camp. What makes me bristle about FIRE are the enormous differences in lifestyle and risk that exist between the FIRE community and those that have retired in a more traditional manner.
1. Quitting a high paying job in your early thirties doesnāt make you retired. It makes you unemployed.
2. You can put as much lipstick as you want on your side hustle(s). At the end of the day, your side hustle is still a job. You wouldnāt be paid to do it if it wasnāt work. You work the hustle because you need the money.
3. If one wants to live in a 900 square foot house, clip coupons all day, mooch Netflix off family/friends and shop at Goodwill, have at it. I donāt call that retired. I call that poor.
4. I retired at age 57. Still an element of financial risk involved to make our money last. The FIRE retirees are looking at funding 50-60 years of retirement. Letās see what your finances look like just 30 years from now.
5. Bad things happen in life. The stock market will crash again and again. Sequence of returns will bite the FIRE crowd hard. Illness, accidents, catastrophic loss and divorce occur daily. Got room in the budget for alimony and child support?
6. The FIRE movement is like Amway. A handful of people will make the big bucks and have the exotic automobiles. The vast majority end up with a garage full of laundry detergent. Some in FIRE will succeed. Most will fail.
7. As we get older we want more comfort and ease. The FIRE life is a lifetime commitment to keeping the hustle going. No thanks.
ESI says
Haha! I got a laugh out of this!
That said, I agree that there’s a lot of risk being taken out there and if things don’t go just right (and they never do), there is going to be a lot of pain in the FIRE community.
That’s why I prefer both 1) having multiple margins of safety (https://esimoney.com/key-early-retirement-margin-safety/) and 2) FatFire where you actually have way more than enough. We’re actually beyond even that as our income is still more than our expenses.
I am working on a couple posts that talk about some of these issues, so stay tuned…
RJF says
There is one outstanding thing about FIRE that I should have mentioned. Itās fantastic to see young adults taking an interest in their financial lives. Time will tell if they succeed, but at least they all know the value of a dollar!
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
Yours is the comment of the day on the Internet. Priceless!
biggrey says
A lot of rich (actual net-worth-wealthy) people live in 900 square foot spaces. That is not unusual at all in many global VHCOL city environments. We are contemplating it and we are pretty well-heeled and retired. We have other places to camp out as as well….but 900 square feet is very livable for two in an ultra-urban environment.
George says
Glad I’m not the only one that bristled at that. I like my small house, it is perfect for two people. Also helps prevent lifestyle creep.
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
There have been some really good comments and I have enjoyed the lively banter back and forth. Having said that, I’ve come to the following conclusion:
A retired state is in the eye of the beholder. If I have my definition of retirement and establish a criteria that I need to meet to achieve it, then once I have met those conditions, I am retired, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS. However, if someone else meets the same criteria with which I consider myself retired but they have a different definition of what being retired means to them, then they will consider themselves not retired until their definition is met by their own established criteria. In other words, we can achieve the same criteria and still be considered retired or not retired based on our definition of what retirement means to us. To me, I worked most of my adult life to create money to support me and my family and now I am at a point where my money will now do the heavy lifting and work to support me and my family so that I don’t have to. But just because that is my definition for me does not mean it has to be everyone’s definition.
What I shake my head over is why so many FIRE bloggers in the community work so hard to try and convince me they are retired when it does not matter at all what I think; it only matters what they think for themselves.
Anyway, thanks to everyone who commented. It was fun!
ESI says
This is why I ask retirees what their definition of retirement is. At this point I think it’s very much in the eye of the beholder.
Paper Tiger (aka Mi-27) says
Cool, so the Retirement Police no longer have to feel foolish for hanging on to our traditional views? š
Rich says
Great comments! I agree āretirementā is more gray than it used to be.
In ESIās great example of Jim the bicycle enthusiast, yes I would say heās retired. He also has a hobby that makes some money. Cool.
But perhaps Jim loves this, and starts putting in 20 hours a week and gets paid well. I would STILL say heās retired, but he also seems to have a part-time job, working for himself. Is it still a āhobbyā? Sure. He answers to no one, and doesnāt need the money to pay his bills. To me, heās still retired.
If Jim starts working 35-40 hours a week at this, it starts to get harder objectively to say heās totally āretiredā. He HAS retired, yes, from his long-time career, but now he seems to be running his own bicycle business full-time. But he still doesnāt āneedā the money. Maybe he still thinks of himself as retired. Ok by me.
Long story short, Iām not the Retirement Police. Jim can call himself whatever the heck he wants to at any point, no complaints from me.
My PERSONAL definition: when I do not need to ever work again for money, because I have all the assets I will need to generate a comfortable income for life. (Iām about 5-6 years away.) If I have some hobbies/blogging that make some bucks great, but that will be purely for pleasure. If my pleasures end up making a lot of money, excellent, but thatās just gravy.
Peter says
I kind of just chuckle and shake my head when these “are they really retired” debates come up. To me the answer is who cares? While there can be a by the book definition of retirement in the dictionary, idea of retirement is pretty subjective in my mind. It means something different to everyone.
To one person it means working til 65, then quitting work and living off of retirement funds and pension on the beach in Hawaii. To someone else it means working until they’re financially independent, and then moving on to other things – which may include work of some kind. In other words, working first because you have to, and then working because you want to. Working for need, versus working for fulfillment.
The key is to figure out what it means for you, and then work towards reaching your goals.
Who cares what anyone else thinks it is, because it’s probably based on their own understanding and their own goals – not yours.
Figure out your own definition and get crackin!
Big-D says
The answer when someone asks if I am retired is NUNYA .. Nun Ya Damn Business.
No seriously. I generally respond with if you answer no to the first 3 and yes to the last 3, you are retired.
* Are you working >= 40 hours per week at your primary job and side gigs?
* Does someone else dictate your activities (or are you free to choose to do what you want to do, not including a spouse)?
* Are you working because you have to (health care, bills to pay, etc.) or because you want to (you like it the company, the job is rewarding, etc.)?
* If your company closed tomorrow, would you have to work another day in your life?
* If your car died tomorrow, would you have enough to pay for a new $30k car (average price of new car) in cash without too much of a hit to your current lifestyle?
* If you had a major health scare, would you be able to survive the medical bills without impacting your current lifestyle?
SK in NJ says
Great writing ESI, thank you! The definition that really resonated with me was from RI-10 āRetirement is the freedom to do what you want!ā Thus MI-96 in above comments as well āComplete freedom of choice ā Jan 2020 is my target and I am really looking forward to it! In addition to my corporate job I work part time as a veterinary assistant and my current plans are to get more involved with that. But hey, complete freedom to decide then! In regards to the comment that if you love what you do itās not work…I was on a cattle drive for vacation and one of the other guests was a full time cattle rancher. He loved his work so much he did it on vacation…the difference was he used modern techniques and we were doing it the old fashioned way!
Paper Tiger (aka MI-27) says
Going on a vacation where the activity is doing the same kind of work you do every day; now that’s what I call REALLY loving your job!
GrC says
For me, retirement is leaving a job Iām tired of after 30 years, in region I donāt like, so I can have a better quality of life. Iād rather die at 85 broke, then at 54 with a few million in the bank. That being said, my retirement plan is to earn at least $7k in wages each year to allow me to move savings to a Roth, and to keep busy in general. I canāt make too much or I lose the healthcare credit.
Is my plan solid? Who knows, Iāve judged as best I can. Did I plan on a worst case illness? No, but I also didnāt plan on winning the lottery. Like Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face. A typical person who goes to work every day to pay the mortgage and support the family can easily be laid off at any point and have to make changes. Why should early retirement be any different? If unforeseen events occur and you donāt have enough to make ends meet, you find work. I would have no problem telling people I thought I could do it, but I made a mistake and had to go back to work.
Tom says
Before I “retired”, I was in the same camp as the Retirement Police – if you’re retired, you ain’t working! Old school, I know – but that’s pretty much what I saw from my parents’ generation.
Nowadays, though, you have all these different shapes of retirement, as has been pointed out. For instance, let’s say someone exits their career job, but then discovers several years that they can’t maintain their desired lifestyle and make sure that their retirement savings last long enough. So they get a part time job as a ________ (Walmart greeter, etc etc – whatever McJob you want to fill in the blank with). It’s not a work they care about at all – i.e., if they felt they didn’t have to do it, they wouldn’t. First and foremost it provides some income which they need in order to not be impoverished. Is this person retired? Financially independent? What???
I think the bottom line is that we need some new words. Given that English is very much an ever-changing and evolving language, it seems to me that that should be on the table as a possibility.
So. What are the main versions of retirement that we are aware of? And what should we call them???
Done done. A combination of passive income, mailbox money, and investment assets allow me to live how I want without ever actively working for another dime – unless I feel like it. But I pass the acid test, which is that I can live just how I like and not earn anything through active work. This may or may not include leaving an inheritance – that’s up to each person, and Done Done is possible either way.
On FIRE. Ditch the 9-5, the W-2. I’m Financially Independent, Retiring Early. Yeah, I still have some gigs going to top up my cash account. But I get to pick and choose what those gigs are, and how much time I spend on them. Some years are lean and some are fat, and I’m ok with adjusting my burn rate accordingly.
Retired eker. I saved and invested, got some pension, got some Social Security, but it’s not quite enough to get me by. Unfortunately, I got off the career treadmill, and there’s no way I can/want to get back on, so my only option is to find whatever part time work I can in order to make sure I don’t run out of money before I die. I’m worried that could still happen, so my backup plan is to move out of our paid-off house into a trailer park.
Any others?
What about coming up with some new names for *these*??
ESI says
I like those!
Deanna says
I loved mathematics too. I found great comfort in the sanity of math.
This was a whirlwind of a post & I am glad I stuck it out. Yep, language evolves, people do to.
For me now retirement means generally stepping away from 9-5 work and being able to do whatever I want with my time (which might still include making $).