The 'Save 50-70%' Math Doesn't Work Anymore Without Six Figures—Is FIRE Becoming Class-Exclusive?

General
1

I’ve been reading FIRE blogs since 2015, and the advice was always: save 50-70%, retire in 10-15 years. Last week I realized that math only works for me because I make $185K/year as a tech worker. My wife is a teacher (state salary, $62K). Together we’re $247K, but the 70% savings target? Completely wrong math for her income tier.

The more I look at the numbers, the more FIRE feels like it’s becoming gatekept. Teachers, nurses, social workers — the professions we actually need — can’t hit 70% savings rates when taxes take 35%, housing is 30% of gross, and healthcare costs keep rising. Someone earning $65K hitting 70% savings means living on $19,500/year. That’s… unrealistic.

Has anyone else noticed that FIRE discourse is increasingly dominated by tech folks and high-income professionals? Are we building tools and frameworks for an elite, or is this solvable?

2

Has anyone else noticed that FIRE discourse is increasingly dominated by tech folks

I’d push back on “becoming.” FIRE was always dominated by high-income earners—it’s just we’re finally having the honesty conversation. The real question isn’t “is FIRE elite?” but “what versions of independence are accessible to teachers and nurses?” Coast FIRE. Slow FIRE. Geographic flexibility. Those conversations are way more useful than treating traditional FIRE as a moral failure for $60K earners.

3

FICA alone (7.65%) eats $4.8K annually on a $62K salary. FICA + federal + state: closer to $18K gone. That’s not discretionary.

4

What kills me is he’s not wrong. The $1-2M FIRE targets in blogs assume either dual income or inheritance or winning the startup lottery.

Has it ever not been that way though? Or are we just finally noticing?