Barista FIRE is the point where your investments cover most of your expenses — and a part-time job covers the rest. Find out how much you need.
Barista FIRE is a hybrid early retirement strategy. Instead of saving enough for full FIRE (where investments cover 100% of expenses), you save enough that your portfolio covers most of your expenses — and you cover the rest with low-stress part-time work, often a job that provides health insurance like the original Starbucks barista example that gave the strategy its name.
Barista FIRE Number = (Annual Expenses − Part-Time Income) ÷ Safe Withdrawal Rate
If your expenses are $50,000/year and you plan to earn $20,000/year part-time, you need $30,000 in passive income. At a 4% withdrawal rate, that's a $750,000 Barista FIRE number — far less than the $1,250,000 you'd need for full FIRE.
Full FIRE: Investments cover 100% of expenses. Highest savings target.
Coast FIRE: You stop saving and let the portfolio grow on its own. Still need a full-time job for now.
Barista FIRE: You quit your full-time career but keep part-time income to supplement smaller withdrawals.
Lean FIRE: Full FIRE on a frugal budget under $40K/year.
It originated in the FIRE community as a reference to working part-time at Starbucks specifically because the company offered health insurance to employees working 20+ hours per week. The job became a stand-in for any low-stress part-time role with benefits.
Most Barista FIRE planners assume $15,000–$30,000 per year, depending on local part-time wages and how many hours they want to work. Healthcare-providing jobs are valued highly because individual market health insurance is expensive in the U.S.
Not quite. The key difference is intentionality — you're choosing meaningful or low-stress work, not staying in a high-pressure career out of financial necessity. You have the financial cushion to walk away anytime.
Build in a margin of safety. A common approach: calculate your number assuming part-time income, but aim for 15–20% beyond that so you can absorb income variability without immediately drawing more from investments.
The math works anywhere, but the strategy is most popular in the U.S. specifically because of the healthcare cost gap. In countries with universal healthcare, the appeal is more about lifestyle than insurance access.