This aspect was so frustrating to me. He's far too dismissive of the reasons people spend money and buy things.
Yes, some people spend money on Louis Vuitton bags and fancy cars to show off. But other things people spend money on do legitimately make their life better, more comfortable, or happier. A house in a quieter neighborhood helps me sleep better. A bigger house, where my spouse and I can each have our private space helps our relationship. Clothes that fit well make me more comfortable. A reliable car makes my life less stressful. Are these things "keeping up" or "conspicuous consumption" just because I was not absolutely required to buy them? Is my partner a bad person if she'd rather have a quiet hotel room than stay in a hostel?
I do think that it's worthwhile to be introspective about how you spend your money, and if the things you're spending your money on actually do make you happier. But this black and white thinking is really counterproductive.
He mulls over and comes to the conclusion later in his post that he probably could have done more to save his relationship. Just based off of the sentence you quoted and other things he said, I wouldn't be surprised if he was very dismissive of his ex-wifes struggle to find meaning, or desire to go back to work. Cheating is terrible, but having a partner who doesn't try to see your struggles can be crippling.
> I wouldn't be surprised if he was very dismissive of his ex-wifes struggle to find meaning, or desire to go back to work.
What you are saying is in direct contradiction with what he says in the article:
> I encouraged her to explore her own life and find activities and goals that would help her feel better. I suggested therapy and offered to go with her. I was clear that if she wanted to go back to work I was eager to support her in this. I wanted her to do anything that might help. But my suggestions and support weren’t enough
Yea it sounds like he just didn't really beta test his FI ideas with his wife before launching, and then found out later that they have an irreconcilably different view of what life should be all about. She wanted to keep up with mythical Joneses and he didn't. Things were fine while their interests were aligned (accumulating wealth), but went south when the appearance of "falling behind" started in. I don't think anyone was wrong here (besides the infidelity)--just different world views that ended up being incompatible.
If I wasn't married with a kid, I'd be retired right now. I'd be perfectly content buying a $25K plot of land in the desert, parking a mobile home on it, and living out the rest of my life on $10-20K/year, but there's just no way on earth they'd stick around for that! Your FIRE plan needs to work with your whole family.
It specifically says that the ex was on-board with the idea. And given that they were together for 20 years and early retirement is a goal that takes 10+ years to reach, at a minimum, I'd say the OP did their due diligience.
The read I got was that the reality of retirement didn't suit the ex's personality. The lead-up was fine, being frugal, aiming for a long term goal, but the reality of it had unintended effects that the ex couldn't handle as well as OP.
It does read a bit absurd with the over-the-top proper nouns, but this being the author's description of their past beliefs led me to interpret this as their being self-critical about the less nuanced opinions they once held about their lifestyle, rather than seriously looking down their nose at the people who have chosen a different lifestyle.
I was thinking the same thing: geeze, isn't there anything between virtue signalling early retirement and conspicuous consumption?