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

Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 297 posts

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#231

Post by koonsolo »

CodeCube wrote: post #79
branchless wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has several rentals and lives off other families. We can't all do that. It's not a real, scalable solution. It's not genuine.

Personally, I find rent-seeking landlords to be an unethical pursuit. I know that's not a mainstream thought, and is the underpinning of many people's income strategy ... but I can't support the idea of letting a family live in a property for decades, and then something happening, and they're on the street with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of dollars they have given in rent.

I'm sure you have some properties where families can live for free, or at least only have to pay half of the rent? Or you give away interest free montages so they can buy their own place?

If not, what the fuck are you talking about then? Landlords offer a service for money. Since when is that unethical?

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#232

Post by taway_1212 »

abledon wrote: post #197
nilkn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you only live to be 80, you'll have to stretch out that $375k nest egg for a whopping 43 years of inflation, rising healthcare costs, and unpredictable market conditions. And God forbid you reach 80, run out of money, and then... keep living, old and frail and weak with no job prospects. FIRECalc suggests a probability of about 20% of running out of money by age 80 with a 4% annual withdrawal rate (adjusted…

when you retire @ 37, you can start to do yoga/tai chi religiously, 1-2 hrs a day, so when your 80 years old your not old/frail. And IF you are tired of material existence, you have the means to end your life internally by simply controlling your energy, sending it up your spine into your brain ;)

> when you retire @ 37, you can start to do yoga/tai chi religiously, 1-2 hrs a day, so when your 80 years old your not old/frail.

Ever heard of diseases (not to mention just plain old aging)? Tai chi/joga is not a ticket to immortality.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#233

Post by yessql »

nilkn wrote: post #194
yessql wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or god forbid, you work a little bit to supplement your nest egg during those 43 years.

Sure, but that changes the topic a fair bit. Part of the allure of MMM is telling people they can retire at age 30 to 40 with a relatively small amount of money if only they can keep their expenses under control and live frugally. The reality is that as you get deeper into that 43 year period without pursuing your career, your marketable skills will diminish as well. Many careers don't "scale down" either. A person w…

Well, you said this was a dangerous plan. The biggest danger is that you have to go back to work.

If you continually only withdraw 4% of your nest egg (reducing your absolute withdrawal during market drops), then make up the difference if you need to in order to cover current expenses, then you'd be just fine.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#234

Post by roel_v »

jmilloy wrote: post #172
djrogers wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly should be the relationship between the person who owns a home and the person that lives in it then? One of charity? Or do you think private home ownership is in and of itself wrong?

There is a position in between "all rental arrangements are okay" and "no rental arrangements are okay". I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking would have no ethical objection if the landlord charged an amount corresponding to costs of maintaining and renting the house (taxes, upkeep, risk, management, etc). The objection is when a landlord is able to work a few hours a month managing their propertie…

"I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking"

Jesus fuck I just wish people would stop throwing that word around trying to sound like economists when they obviously have no idea what it even means. Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#235

Post by vasilipupkin »

ahelwer wrote: post #230
vasilipupkin wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok. but if you don't need the money, why not do a million other activities that don't bring in money?

Why does it matter whether doing what you want to do brings in money?

it doesn't but then there is no advantage to whatever MMM is doing, vs just having a well paid regular job that you like.

to me the point of retirement is to be able to wake up at 9 and go for a walk or travel or reading a book. Not going to 3 different part time jobs.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#236

Post by jaclaz »

Only to say that there is "nothing new under the sun", Mr. Money Mustache's basic message is (was) essentially "common sense", some time ago I cited an old Italian proverb in a similar enough topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14593794

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14594858

He only uses his own experience to show how it can come out in practice (and of course it needs to be scaled - down or up - depending on personal income, financial situation, family size, etc. and of course expectations).

Results will of course be different, but the basic principle remains valid.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#237

Post by lkbm »

woobar wrote: post #219
lkbm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I live on $30k/yr (I lived comfortably on a less for years--Austin, not SF) and pay 30% in taxes (again, Texas is an exception this way), that's $550k after five years without interest. If you can then earn 5%/yr on that $550, that gives you $27.5k/yr to live on--and you've already been making it on $30k/yr... Basically, learn to be comfortable on a reasonably low income. In the interview, he talks about biking as…

> average cost of car ownership in the US is something like $8k/yr The number you've quoted is about new cars. For used cars it could be 10 times less.

It definitely can be a lot less, but national average for insurance alone is $815[0]. Obviously a lot of people have costs below average, but a car is going to be a major expense. If you can do it (legally) for under $1000/yr, you're probably driving very little, taking some risks (in having minimal insurance) and doing a lot more maintenance/repairs yourself than most people know how to.

Under $8000 is easy, seeing as $8000 is average. Under $1000, I'm not so sure about. Maintenance/repairs on a new car averages > $1000/yr[1]--I'd assume used cars to be at least as high. Insurance average cost is similar. Fuel is going to be several hundred unless you have a very efficient car you drive very little.

I think people just look at their monthly car payment and ignore most other costs associated with car ownership. There are a lot of not-so-little costs. There are also lots of not-so-little benefits, but you need to weigh both, not just the latter.

[0] https://www.thesimpledollar.com/how-much-does-car-insurance-... [1] http://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-costs/

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#238

Post by dragonwriter »

roel_v wrote: post #234
jmilloy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a position in between "all rental arrangements are okay" and "no rental arrangements are okay". I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking would have no ethical objection if the landlord charged an amount corresponding to costs of maintaining and renting the house (taxes, upkeep, risk, management, etc). The objection is when a landlord is able to work a few hours a month managing their propertie…

"I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking" Jesus fuck I just wish people would stop throwing that word around trying to sound like economists when they obviously have no idea what it even means . Renting out real estate is not rent seeking .

> Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.

While to a certain extent real estate has been transformed into something that, in some cases, approximates a commodity, it is historically the canonical non-subsitutable monopolized good where each item lacks perfect substitutes, which is why “rent-seeking” is literally named after what landlords do. Renting out real estate is the “trope naming” instance of rent-seeking.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#239

Post by astura »

markdog12 wrote: post #202
sidlls wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what almost every one of these success stories, blogs, etc. are. They're very heavily weighted toward survivor bias and elide much context around being born into relatively privileged circumstances.

Maybe other bloggers were "privileged", but MMM grew up in a family that didn't have a ton of money, and he payed for his own college via jobs he worked as a teenager. In short, he worked his ass off.

I worked my ass off to get where I am financially. I grew up with low income, abusive, mentally ill, and alcoholic parents. I wasn't taught hardly any life skills and I had no "connections" of which to speak. I worked hard to get where I am now (I save/invest 70% of my income a year) but I don't for a second discount luck as a big part of it. Someone making similar choices as I did can surely have a different outcome.

Plus the biggest increase in my financial status came from getting married to someone who makes just as much money as I do.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#240

Post by wpietri »

exergy wrote: post #17
wpietri wrote: post #6

Oh god. I'm horrified by this. > People think of a cult as a bad thing [...] really, it’s just a social organization structure which is a basic built-in thing to human beings This is the naturalistic fallacy, or the is-ought fallacy. Other basic built-in things to human beings include ignorance, rage, greed, abuse, exploitation, and violence. A core part of civilization is deciding which of our basic built-in things…

I'm going to use your comment to go on a bit of a rant. What is the purpose of your comment? Like, really. What are you trying to attain by stating what you did? Your comment is pedantic and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Derisive thing to say, perhaps, but this is classic HN. Miss the big picture for a useless little nugget that is of zero consequence. For the current case, for example, a certain amount…

I am mainly trying to point out a common and dangerous philosophical error.

Arguing for creating a cult because it is beneficial on its own is reasonable (although I'd argue it's wrongheaded). Arguing for it on the basis of it being natural is wrong. All sorts of terrible things have been justified this way. Slavery, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

And when you say "vices" I'm not sure who you're quoting, but it's not me. Those are just natural features of the human organism. My point is exactly that they're not intrinsically good or bad. It's in how we structure our society to use them.

Post reply on HN