Being frugal is for the rich • Hacker News Board

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#171

Post by jacobush » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

stretchwithme wrote: post #139

KingMob wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plummeting costs of technology over time make it a poor barometer for measuring wealth. Instead of mobile phones and TVs, look at bigger items like health care, housing, and education, all of which have gotten more expensive (in the case of education, astoundingly so) even as inflation-adjusted wages have decreased.

Ignore manufactured goods and focus on labor intensive ones? No, I think it all matters. And the fact that technology is getting cheaper IS an improvement in our standard of living. People who can find anything within minutes and talk to anybody anytime ARE wealthier than those who have to spend large amounts of time to do the same things.

Potentially wealthier. If they find within minutes where their opiate supplier is, the new cat video and talk to anybody about what the Kardashians (sorry, Kardashians) were up to... are they really wealthier than when these sorts of things took longer?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#172

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:17 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #156

ikeyany wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others do it because it's cheaper than providing full-time salary+benefits. Average people don't really have the resources or connections to open a company.

What resources or "connections" do you need? Thinking you need all these things before you can start is the biggest obstacle to actually starting.

"What resources or "connections" do you need?"

Money, for one. Time for two.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#173

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:19 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #140

ahtu123 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really shows how some people in HN have never experienced poverty. If a households main income earner is making minimum wage they will not be making shopping trips to IKEA to furnish their whole apartment lol. IKEA is cheap but the $50 you have left over after bills won't get you much. Many months you will have a negative balance after you've paid for essentials.

>If a households main income earner is making minimum wage Maybe you shouldn't start a family when you are making minimum wage, in a city with a high cost of living.

Then start lobbying the red states to stop placing restrictions on birth control and family planning.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#174

Post by dijit » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #153

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More entertainment, maybe, but "more" overall? Would you rather live in a world with no smartphones where you afford a house/apartment, or one with smartphones where you can't?

EDIT: Poor decisions are poor decisions and it's much easier to be productive today than ever before, if that's what you choose to be. There's no reason you can't "afford" a house, everything is relative.

Not sure I follow the logic, $350 on a passable phone that lasts 5~ years and affords me the ability to save time on banking (paying bills at least) and also connecting them to unimaginable numbers of people potentially while also granting access to the worlds information. Wifi hopping and pay as you go mobile plans mean that any cost outside of the cellphone itself is miniscule.

Why I think the value proposition of a smartphone is completely justified, it probably pays for itself many times over.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#175

Post by mcguire » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

jogjayr wrote: post #24

anigbrowl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. The 'frugal culture' is selling the idea that this is the road to economic self-sufficiency while omitting or glossing over other significant information, like having a very healthy income stream to begin with. If you're poor, being frugal is very unlikely to lift you out of poverty. That doesn't mean frugality is bad, but that marketing is as the key to financial stability is deceptive.

But the "frugal culture" doesn't call out low-income people or blame them for being poor. Most of the FIRE community and advice is targeted to middle- and upper-middle-class people - office professionals, small businesspeople, skilled tradespeople. If you're poor it's assumed that you're already a black-belt at economizing - most FIRE advice at those income levels focuses on side hustles and ways to increase income.

Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take your average "office professionals, small businesspeople, skilled tradespeople" to frugal their way into a 4-bedroom house on 66 acres, free and clear? (https://www.frugalwoods.com/2016/04/06/that-time-we-bought-a...)

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#176

Post by kirkules » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #156

ikeyany wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others do it because it's cheaper than providing full-time salary+benefits. Average people don't really have the resources or connections to open a company.

What resources or "connections" do you need? Thinking you need all these things before you can start is the biggest obstacle to actually starting.

This is nonsense. You have to know how to open a company, to have an idea for what it will do, have some way of building your product initially, etc. This knowledge (or the time to find it out on one's own) is itself a resource. Being able to take the risks inherent in opening a company is a resource that your average person might not have for many reasons, including needing immediate returns to support dependents or satisfy immediate and important expenses.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#177

Post by vinw » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:23 PM UTC

overeater wrote: post #133

tjpaudio wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

City-based salary adjustments are really something only educated professionals get, low-wage earners are screwed in big cities. I think also it will shock you how much every day items are compared to Europe. For one, public transportation is not available to most of America. So you have to have a car and car insurance, thats hundreds of dollars more per month right there. Cellphone service costs 3x as much as anywher…

Cell phone service in the US can be cheaper than Europe. I have had Project Fi for over a year now, and it's $24/month including taxes. This includes voice, text, international texting, data, and international data. You pay per MB so I don't watch videos on my phone, but use it for everything else.

Compared to the UK this doesn't really sound that cheap.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#178

Post by mcguire » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:24 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #131

mcguire wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the question: if you were to "cut back on things like eating out at restaurants and taking public transportation to work," would you be able to save 71% of your income? How long would it take you, just in cutting back on lattes and painting your own home rather than hiring a contractor, to buy a 4 bedroom house on 66 acres in Vermont? I don't really like doing plumbing, but I've replaced quite a few faucets an…

> Here's the question: if you were to "cut back on things like eating out at restaurants and taking public transportation to work," would you be able to save 71% of your income? No, because my taxation burden alone is well above 29%. I'm pretty sure they're calculating that they're saving 71% of their earned income, but they're almost surely not saving 71% of their earned income plus gross rent receipts.

You are correct, it's post-tax. (https://www.frugalwoods.com/2015/01/09/well-hot-damn-frugali...) It also doesn't include 401(k)s and mortgage principal.

Edit: Here's how they do it: https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/04/10/how-we-save-65-annual...

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#179

Post by DoreenMichele » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:27 PM UTC

There have long been sort of similar advice gurus in this space. "How to survive without a salary" and "The Tightwad Gazette" come to mind.

Some things they seem to have in common:

1. A married couple on the same page financially.

2. Both worked and saved before having kids.

3. Decided to move to the country to live more cheaply.

4. Developed a source of income that was portable such that moving to the country didn't leave them stuck with some underpaid local job.

If you study history, part of the secret to the success of the parents of the Boomers is they were two income families during WW2 because of the men being off at war and the women taking factory jobs. Savings rates were as high as 50 percent due to basically war time rationing. So there wasn't anything to spend it on. With the guys off at war, babies were mostly not being conceived.

So, if you can marry the right person, get on the same page financially, both work full time at something better than slave wages while not yet having any children and socking away the dough, you, too, can have this American dream. The reality is very few people can check all those boxes and if anything goes wrong at any point, the entire thing can be derailed.

Please note, this sort of assumes that neither partner has serious health problems or any addictions or needs tons of therapy for some reason. It assumes nothing goes drastically wrong while you merrily work towards your dream, such as an unexpected pregnancy that could derail your plans even if you get an abortion.

No matter how bad your situation, there are a few takeaways worth noting. Celibacy, paying down debt and making sure you jibe well with anyone close to you are all excellent choices that tend to benefit the bottom line.

But, you know, much easier said than done.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#180

Post by azernik » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

bhandziuk wrote: post #169

ahtu123 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle can be tough at least. Really depends on a lot on where you live and where you work. Almost any commute can be done but it easily gets to 2h+ which is just ridiculous.

Seattle is the only one I have personal experience with and I've found it to be pretty good. Usually walking < 1 mile total is reasonable. If you live out in King county things are a little different of course. Are the other cities better than that?

Hence why I mentioned "average-wage" in GP; usually you can avoid owning a car only by living in housing that is out of reach for anyone making <$6k/month.