I’m writing this post as an exploration on the topic of what a person at the bottom 10% of income could reasonably achieve in terms of financial independence. I think FIRE rightfully has this reputation that it’s for super high income earners only (think top quartile earners). And if we are talking about early retirement specifically, then that reputation absolutely holds. It’s a lot easier to save 65% - 75% of your income when you make $125k as a solo earner versus another solo earner making $40k. The principles behind FIRE and achieving financial independence more broadly are generally good: live within your means, invest the difference, don’t overconsume, avoid consumer debt, and so on. I think it even goes further as to force people to question the lifestyles the feel entitled to and directly challenges them, especially as they earn more income over time.

But if you are at the bottom 10%, you likely are at a more minimal viable lifestyle as it is. You might have some debt from living beyond your means for a brief period, but by and large your lifestyle is likely relatively minimal. How much is there to cut at this point?

The FIRE and personal finance communities, by and large, would suggest this individual “just” increase their income, as if upskilling and getting a better job is something one just does, like shopping for a bag of groceries. The problem with this advice twofold. One, this individual is not stupid; they know more money would make their life easier and could have come up with this solution themselves. The second is that this is not a systemic solution, as there will always be a bottom quartile or bottom decile worker at any point in time. This advice will work for some people at some times in some contexts. Especially in this labor market environment, to suggest to someone “just upskill and get a better job” is as offensive and hideous as telling a homeless person to “just buy a house”.

Maybe this person has a lot of obligations outside of work, like family to take care of. Maybe they already are going to school on the side or have already finished school but have had no luck finding that “better” job. Maybe they’re so burned out working 40+ hours per week that they just don’t have the energy to pursue upskilling. Maybe they have a job working odd hours because that was the only/best job they could get at the time, so fitting in school would be impractical. It’s highly insensitive to tell someone “just get a better job” when such jobs are in short supply, high demand, and fiercely competitive.

So the right solution is to settle with the facts as they are and settle with the real possibility that things might not get any better any time soon. More income is nice, but the environment doesn’t lend itself well to increasing it in any meaningful way. You don’t just jump from the bottom 10% to the median by working more hours. Additional education doesn’t automatically skyrocket you to the top 50%, as many college graduates are finding out the hard way. I’m not saying this individual should give up entirely, but they should be honest with how things are presently.

Core Assumptions

For this examination, I will assume this hypothetical individual is in the bottom 10% of income earners and doesn’t see any real increases in purchasing power over the course of their working life. In other words, while they may see nominal raises every year, they remain a bottom decile earner.

As of Q1 2026 according to the BLS, the bottom decile of full time workers (35+ hours per week) earns about $645 per week or $33,540 per year. For context, that’s just shy above what a full time worker would make on New Jersey state minimum wage of $15.92 per hour, automatically adjusted for CPI. Realistically, this bottom decile worker would be making $1 or $2 per hour above state minimum wage, but for simplicity I will assume they make state minimum wage full time, which comes out to about $33,113 per year.

Housing is the trickiest part of this equation, as it often rises faster than CPI. This means for our minimum wage worker will have housing costs rise faster than their wage. For this whole examination to work, this individual must have a stable housing situation. I would assume they are solo, living with roommates or housemates in a shared house. Taken in the context of living in New Jersey, this would be the only viable option at this income level. Ideally, they would be blessed with the good fortune of living with family and paying artificially low rent while the family is still alive, enabling a much higher savings rate than the tables below suggest. But not everyone lives in that world, unfortunately.

I will also assume — as controversial as this may sound — that social security is still functional by the time they hit full retirement age. The social security trust fund is projected to run out of money in 2034, but FICA taxes will still be collected, so a portion of benefits will still be paid. As of my most recent social security statement, that comes out to 81% of full benefits. As much as I believe our congress people don’t care, I reckon they wouldn’t just let social security fold entirely under their watch. Mind you, social security can’t just collapse instantly as long as FICA taxes are being collected. It would take an act of congress to suspend FICA taxes entirely. As long as FICA taxes are being collected, social security will be there to some extent. The reason why this assumption is essential is because without some form of social security, this bottom decile earner can never afford to retire; the brunt of bare minimum living costs would be far too much for their portfolio to handle. To be safe and conservative, I expect future FICA taxes to fund a lower and lower portion of full benefits. For this scenario, I will assume 75% of benefits will be funded by the time this person reaches retirement age.

For this person’s age, I will assume they will start building their retirement life raft at age 35. Maybe they became disciplined about their debt and spending at age 30, and became debt free with a modest 3 month emergency fund by age 35. I will show later on what their life raft will be at various social security claiming ages: at 62, 67, and 70.

I specifically do not assume they have student loans, or at least any meaningful amount of student loans. This is because, according to the Education Data Initiative, the bottom 20% of households owe only 5% of the student loan debt. It’s also the case that 25% of adults between ages 18 and 39 owe student loan debt. In other words, if this person is and always was a bottom decile earner, they either didn’t take on student loans at all, or took on a small amount before stopping school. So the debt I’m assuming they started out with is likely consumer debt, an auto loan, small student loans, or some combination of all three.

For savings rate, I will not factor in a 401(k) match by default. When someone earns this low relative to others, it’s not a given that their job will offer a 401(k) at all, let alone one with a match. So when you see a 9% savings rate, for example, it’s possible this could mean 6% gross income with a 3% match, or just 9% of gross earnings in a tax deferred or tax advantaged account.

For their FI number, I’m not going to propose an aspirational number, but rather a minimal floor to reach. The mission here is to ensure this person can withdraw enough from their portfolio plus social security so that they aren’t starving and homeless when they’re old. This isn’t to create a decadent lifestyle, rather to create a sturdy foundation to stand on. I’m going to be using my modified poverty line, which as of 2026 is $26,030 per year. This target will increase by CPI + 1% every year, but even with that I will still use 4% as a safe withdrawal rate. The 4% rule assumes that withdrawals are increased by CPI every year, but since this hypothetical person won’t necessarily live a full 30 years, I think the CPI + 1% adjustment won’t matter as much. This is especially the case if they retire at 67 or 70; their life expectancy won’t be that high.

All numbers used moving forward will be put in terms of present day 2026 dollars, meaning inflation is already factored in.

A Reality Check

I want to take a moment just acknowledge the reality of what we are talking about. My math assumes that this person is saving a fixed percentage of their income every year, but that alone might be a Herculean task especially for a low income earner. Realistically they might miss a year here and there, and savings will be lumpy and bumpy. Life happens, emergencies happen. Being able to have any sizable nest egg would be a massive feat, especially if this person struggles to increase their income.

It’s also worth noting that embarking on this journey might be very difficult to begin with. We often think of low income people as being stupid or bad with money, but the reality may be they’re stuck in a short term survival mode that prevents them from seeing beyond the next paycheck. I’m sure if we scoured the world and looked for long enough, we might find a few here and there that fit the stereotype, but in my opinion that wouldn’t be the norm. To be able to look on the horizon and decide to save X% of their income and invest it for retirement is a necessity, sure, but it’s also a luxury.

With that out of the way, let’s get onto the math.

The Math

For Social Security, here is a table of what a person making $33,113 would be entitled to monthly at key claiming ages, according to the official social security benefits calculator.

Below is how much annual spend the individual’s portfolio would need to cover in order to sustain them at an annual spend of $26,030, assuming the 75% benefit is used. It also shows what their portfolio would need to be assuming a 4% safe withdrawal rate.

As we can see, waiting longer drastically reduces the portfolio needed to fund a subsistence lifestyle. The good news is that there is plenty of opportunity to upgrade this person’s standard of living, as the longer this person works, the more time compounding has to do its thing.

Below is a table showing what this individual’s portfolio would potentially be assuming a certain savings rate by a certain age. This would be a percentage of gross income. This could be from their earnings exclusively, or their earnings plus a 401(k) match depending on how fortunate this individual is. For asset allocation I’m going to assume this person is in a stock heavy allocation (at least 80% stocks) for the duration of their life. I would suggest this person stray away from Target Date Funds as they become too bond heavy at later ages, and we really need a growth engine to handle those CPI + 1% adjustments. I’m going to assume a globally diversified portfolio that returns 8% nominally on average, with a 3% average inflation rate. Since we are using CPI + 1% for this solo individual’s FI number, we would have a real growth rate of 4%. All portfolio amounts are rounded to the nearest $10. For portfolios that meet the minimum amount needed to cover the spending gap, I’ve placed a ✅. For those that don’t, I’ve placed a ❌.

The Takeaway

It’s very clear this person is never retiring at 62; it would require such a high savings rate they couldn’t possibly attain at that income level. It’s also clear that unless they are saving a minimum of 15%, they won’t retire by 67 either. While in theory it should be possible to set aside 15%, someone at this level of income might not be able to sustain that. However, age 70 sees the most potential. It doesn’t really take a whole lot to reach subsistence level by age 70, partially because of compounding but mostly because of the boosted social security benefit. This is especially true if they have a 401(k) with a match and are able to maintain a job that provides that.

There is optimism in this, however.

Consider also that in retirement, assuming this person is saving in a Roth account(s), they would be paying little or no income tax — state or federal. Add in some geoarbitrage, and there’s potential to live a modest and simple retirement. Earning $26,030 from a W-2 or 1099 is very different from living off of $26,030 in retirement when you no longer have to pay taxes.

In all likelihood, it is unlikely this person stays at the bottom 10% forever. As long as they move about from job to job and look for modest gains in between, they should be able to move up a decile or even two. A bachelor’s degree might not be helpful, as underemployment rates for all college graduates is hovering at about 34% — 42.5% for recent grads — according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Plus, it would get them in substantial debt, which wouldn’t be worth it especially if they can’t land an appropriate job. If, however, this person went and got an associates in a specific vocational track, like Healthcare or certain Technician jobs (like Engineering Tech or Automation Tech), they might have a chance. The risk would be relatively low compared to getting a full bachelors, as in-county vocational/community college costs hover around $200 per credit depending on where you live. At 60 credits, this would be $12k, which is far more doable. The issue would be finding the time and the energy to do this, and the luck involved in finally landing that first higher paying job.

However, even if this worker never upskilled, never got a better job, and saved some portion of their income over time, they would be able to avoid total destitution. That’s the best news I think.

I think it’s worth noting that despite the common stereotype, financial independence isn’t purely for the labor aristocracy or the well-to-do. It is theoretically possible to build yourself a modest life raft even at the bottom rung of earners. But it does require starting relatively young. A 45 year old starting with nothing at this earning level would require a much higher savings rate, which they likely wouldn’t find sustainable. I think if you’re young and struggle to make “real” money, there’s hope for you in having a baseline level of dignity. There are plenty of reasons not to save and invest, especially for those who are young and discouraged, but that’s for a separate blog post.