Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World

by Cal Newport

For those who are interested, the central insight of the FI 2.0 movement is that if you can radically reduce your living expenses, you gain two advantages: (1) you can save money at a much faster pace (a 50 to 70 percent savings rate is common), and (2) you don’t have to save as much to become independent, as the expenses you need to meet are lower. If you need only $30,000 take-home pay to live comfortably, for example, then saving $750,000 in a low-cost index fund will likely cover these expenses (with inflation adjustments) for decades. Now imagine that you’re a young couple with two good salaries that generate $100,000 in take-home pay each year. Because you need only $30,000 to live on, you can save $70,000 a year. Assuming a 5 to 6 percent annual growth rate, you’d hit your target in eight to nine years. If you start this in your twenties, you’ll end up financially independent by your late thirties. Naturally, much of the FI 2.0 literature focuses on the argument that these levels of frugality are less drastic than you might imagine.

They are insane and don't account for health problems or, frankly, general curiosity. Or pesach grocery shopping