Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Quitting

lindaeliasen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: On Quitting

#131

Post by redblacktree »

johnward wrote: post #123
redblacktree wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to pay off the house, but my wife and I (similar situation to the two of you) managed to pay off $47k in debt (credit cards, student loans, and car loans) in two years. In the months that followed, we saved a six-month emergency fund. We just stuck to a budget, and put every other penny on debt. We followed the Dave Ramsey plan. People poo poo him for not being sophisticated enough, but it's about changing…

I'm taking the snowball approach right now too. Maybe I will eventually get to where I can put away 20% but for now that extra money goes to paying down debt. Aside from $100 a month that goes into an emergency savings fund and 4% into my 401k.

When I started the snowball, I stopped contributing to the 401k, in an effort to be as focused as possible. I think that's one of the great strengths of Dave's plan. Being focused solely on one goal at a time gives you a quick feeling of accomplishment as you start racking up wins. If you spread your efforts out across too many goals, you may get discouraged when you don't seem to be making fast progress on anything.

Re: On Quitting

#132

Post by brianwawok »

Killswitch wrote: post #91
mhurron wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you choose where you live Given that it takes money to move, no, you do not always have a choice in where to live.

Bullshit. Nobody forces you to live in an expensive city. Nobody makes you buy a million dollar house. You chose your own destiny. Stop putting the blame on others. I lived in Chicago on a $800/mo salary for a year and a half. Yes eight hundred dollars a month, in the city of Chicago. I had no money, but I made it work, then I moved back home to small town Iowa and make a lot more now, and live a better life. Nobody…

Agreed.

It's dumb to devolve this argument down to "But what if you have cancer and 7 dogs and 3 kids, how would you move?"

Because the average person reading hacker news with a tech job in the valley does not have 7 dogs and 3 kids and cancer. We can feel sorry for that person, but I am pretty sure we can blame all 200k software developers living in SF as having 7 dogs 3 kids and cancer.

Re: On Quitting

#133

Post by hammock »

Killswitch wrote: post #91
mhurron wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you choose where you live Given that it takes money to move, no, you do not always have a choice in where to live.

Bullshit. Nobody forces you to live in an expensive city. Nobody makes you buy a million dollar house. You chose your own destiny. Stop putting the blame on others. I lived in Chicago on a $800/mo salary for a year and a half. Yes eight hundred dollars a month, in the city of Chicago. I had no money, but I made it work, then I moved back home to small town Iowa and make a lot more now, and live a better life. Nobody…

I had a buddy that lived in a coffin apartment in Chinatown (Chicago) for <$200/mo. He was a struggling musician and I was impressed at his ability to make it work

Re: On Quitting

#134

Post by itsybitsycoder »

thfuran wrote: post #130
yummyfajitas wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strangely, the average Indian (vastly poorer than even poor Americans) manages to save 20%. Lets distinguish "incapable of saving" from "unwilling to reduce consumption".

Am I merely "unwilling to reduce consumption" if I refuse to save money by not paying for internet or a cellphone plan?

Are those really the only optional expenses you have? I would find that very surprising.

Re: On Quitting

#135

Post by brianmcconnell »

jasim wrote: post #52

Once you ask yourself about leaving, it is only a question of when, not whether. Sooner, the better. It is not you nor them; it is just time. Tight-knit groups wrap themselves inside a bubble of conformance. The group's very existence is based on a shared worldview about itself - that it is correct. To leave is to question a choice made by everyone else. To stand out in a crowd is physically painful - it is called th…

The biggest regrets I have in life stem from ignoring my "spider sense" about a situation. It's often difficult to articulate what's wrong, but if you have a vague feeling something's wrong, it most likely is.

Re: On Quitting

#136

Post by ryandrake »

gregd wrote: post #4

I have never been in a position to just up and quit a job without having something else lined up. Are you all trust fund kids?

I'm with you on this. The replies you're getting in this thread are mind-blowingly tone-deaf. People with no expenses, making gobs and gobs of money, feign-surprise-bragging "WTF how are you not financially independent??? Doesn't everyone save 20% of their salaries and take months off to go canoeing??" It's really quite ugly.

I'd be willing to bet the vast, VAST majority of Americans cannot just up and quit their job because they got a hangnail and felt sad about it. Not having a job tomorrow is my biggest nightmare. It's a nightmare that haunts billions of people on the planet. gregd's astonishment at this article is understandable.

If you're socking away tons money into savings each month, you need to take a look at yourself [YES THIS MEANS YOU, person hovering over the "reply" button], stop and look at yourself and realize you are one of a very lucky privileged few who can afford such a luxury. Be thankful for it, and don't pretend to be surprised that everyone here is not equally fortunate.

Re: On Quitting

#137

Post by icedchai »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #121
icedchai wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the average American is incapable of saving even 5% of their income, right? That's why this is so unbelievable to some.

Strangely, the average Indian (vastly poorer than even poor Americans) manages to save 20%. Lets distinguish "incapable of saving" from "unwilling to reduce consumption".

I think "consumption" is baked into American culture. Most people are not going to save, period.

Re: On Quitting

#138

Post by gregd »

ryandrake wrote: post #136
gregd wrote: post #4

I have never been in a position to just up and quit a job without having something else lined up. Are you all trust fund kids?

I'm with you on this. The replies you're getting in this thread are mind-blowingly tone-deaf. People with no expenses, making gobs and gobs of money, feign-surprise-bragging "WTF how are you not financially independent??? Doesn't everyone save 20% of their salaries and take months off to go canoeing??" It's really quite ugly. I'd be willing to bet the vast, VAST majority of Americans cannot just up and quit their job…

The responses I got were along the lines of "if you aren't saving %#% of your income per month, you're living beyond your means". I've lived paycheck to paycheck my entire existence and I'm almost 50 years old. I've had every job imaginable; built custom cabinets for private jets, managed a laundromat, managed a liquor store, cleaned houses, firefighter, managed a furniture store (sold a million dollars worth of furniture in 2 years, in a town of 16,000 people) and my IT career has spanned 20 years. I’ve worked all types of IT from state governments to one of the largest tech companies in the world.

And yet, I still live paycheck to paycheck.

Re: On Quitting

#139

Post by [deleted] »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #129
gregd wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are still not understanding me. You know nothing about me or my living situation. My state's unemployment maximum amount per week is $538. That barely covers my rent each month.

So, basically: if you got fired tomorrow, four people would be homeless, and 2 people would be foodless because you don't have any savings, and you consider yourself to be a responsible human. Bravo.

[deleted]

Re: On Quitting

#140

Post by gregd »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #129
gregd wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are still not understanding me. You know nothing about me or my living situation. My state's unemployment maximum amount per week is $538. That barely covers my rent each month.

So, basically: if you got fired tomorrow, four people would be homeless, and 2 people would be foodless because you don't have any savings, and you consider yourself to be a responsible human. Bravo.

What's interesting to me is that you've made an absolute judgement call on me and my worth as a human, based solely on my questioning an income large enough to squirrel away 10-20% of my income, when you know nothing about me or what I do while walking in this world.

So basically, yes, my entire family would be homeless if I were to get fired tomorrow. This has caused unimaginable stress on me, being the sole breadwinner of my current predicament. Do I wish it were different? Sure. But for you to base whether or not I'm a "responsible human" on this, speaks volumes about how you walk around in this world.

Post reply on HN