What is the FIRE movement? Saving to such an extent as to anticipate retirement is virtually impossible

The FIRE movement (literally “Financial Independence, Retire Early”) – which promotes an extreme form of financial independence with the goal of achieving early retirement – continues to attract attention, especially among young adults and in certain online circles close to the so-called “Wall Street bros” bubble. In this context, many scenes from the film American Psycho are circulating on Instagram and TikTok, glorifying the character Patrick Bateman (played by Christian Bale), even though the character was actually intended to mock the quirks and paradoxes of financial elites. Within the FIRE movement, the so-called “4% rule” is very popular. According to this principle, to achieve financial independence, one must accumulate capital equal to 25 times their annual expenses. This is because, once that target is reached, it is estimated that it is possible to live by withdrawing 4% of the invested wealth each year, without needing to work or accumulate more money. For instance, someone with annual expenses of €30,000 should aim to save €750,000. The rule is based on the assumption of maintaining an investment portfolio capable of generating sufficient returns to support this 4% withdrawal in the long run. However, many experts point out that this approach, besides being quite controversial, may not be realistic in the long term, particularly in an unstable economic context or with unfavorable market fluctuations—assuming, of course, that one is even able to reach the savings target in the first place.

The FIRE movement originated in the 1990s with the publication of Your Money or Your Life, and more recently the book Early Retirement Extreme helped systematize its core concepts. Today, numerous social media posts—especially in the United States—continue to keep the movement alive. However, many argue that the FIRE ideology is not truly or equally accessible to everyone. One of the most basic issues concerns the difference between personal income and family wealth: essentially, two people with the same monthly salary can be in drastically different financial situations simply because of their social background. Those fortunate enough to come from families that have accumulated wealth and assets over time clearly—despite earning the same salary—have a significant advantage: this access to resources might mean living in an inherited or rent-free home, avoiding the need for a mortgage, or receiving steady financial support. On the other hand, those from less privileged backgrounds or working in fields where it’s hard to get ahead—despite earning the same or even more on paper—often cannot aspire to the same lifestyle as the so-called “nepo babies”.

All this, over time, has a direct impact on one’s ability to save significantly—which is one of the pillars of the FIRE movement. In essence, even with equal skills and job responsibilities, the starting point is almost never the same for everyone, making it much harder—if not entirely unrealistic—to accumulate enough capital within a reasonable timeframe. The ambitions of the FIRE movement are much more achievable for those already embedded in a financially privileged family context, even if not always perceived as such. Family and social capital—often invisible in online narratives on the subject—play a crucial role in determining who can realistically afford to invest consistently, take calculated risks, and maintain a high savings rate without compromising day-to-day stability. The impossibility of joining the FIRE movement becomes even more pronounced, especially for younger people, in countries like Italy, where average wages have remained virtually unchanged since the early 1990s, while in France and Germany they have grown by 25% and 20% respectively over the past thirty years.