I always twitch when I see ratios pegged to income — I tend to prefer using expenses. Just because someone earns a lot doesn’t mean that they need that much to live.
I think they’re talking liquid here.

I did the same thing. It doesn’t really make sense to me to base “financial freedom” levels on how much you make. It makes more sense to base it on how much you spend, because the difference between how much you make and how much you spend (assuming you make more than you spend, here) could vanish tomorrow and you wouldn’t be any worse for wear.

Following the logic that “financial freedom” equals “a year’s worth (or more) of income saved,” then if you lost your job (and thus, have $0 income), you just reached infinite financial freedom, because whatever you have saved is infinitely more than zero.

But that….doesn’t work. You still have expenses you need to deal with somehow.

Save enough money to cover a year’s worth of expenses, however, does. If you managed to get your required expenses to $0, then you would have actually achieved a level of infinite financial freedom.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Shauna Gordon’s story.