A few days ago in a class revolving around the (troubled) economics of labor, the lecturer stopped and asked us all, "What age would you like to retire at?" She pointed at various people. 65. 65. 68. 60. 75. Never (!?). 65. 65. At that point I could no longer contain myself, so I raised my hand, redirected her attention to me, and said, "35," a conservative estimate. The whole class laughed at me, as did the lecturer. I sat there as she moved on to other students (65 ... 63 ... 60 ... 68) and thought about that. They were laughing at me because I want to work less than them, because I want to pursue my hobbies and spend my time in ways not mandated by misguided ideas about what I "need." I think that is profoundly sad. Will they still be laughing when, assuming all goes to plan, they work 40 hours a week and I am retired and pursuing my hobbies? At that point I formulated a belief, came to a sort of realization: work is the cult of modern society. So in short, this is an essay full of extreme insight from Bertrand Russell. Note: not in defense of idleness -- in praise of it. Quite so.
I'm a step ahead of most people my age, in that I'll be graduating debt-free, with decent job prospects and a cash base built up from working. At that point it's almost too easy to retire early; I'll save anywhere from 60 to 75 percent of my income, spend intelligently and invest what I make in ... probably stable index funds, not sure yet. So that's the plan. I'm fiscally nervous as it were because of the way I was raised, so even though I'll hopefully meet my goals at age 35, I may not retire until my 40s. That will partially depend on what my job is and what I want my job to be.