Live data from Hacker News

Being frugal is for the rich

theoutline.com

271–280 of 305 posts

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's say that their choice of media consumption indicates, or creates, their not-wealthier. If they can tap into the entire universe of education and experience an Internet connection implies, and pick cat videos... what would you say is the critical link in their paupery? I mean, horses to water and all that, and it's a matter of choice.

We ALL pick the cat videos. Phones and mobile software are exquisitely engineered to be as addictive as possible. And it works. Here I am, having this largely pointless Hacker News conversation, instead of completing a Deep Learning course or something.

That's the thing about addicts. They almost always pick their addiction (wouldn't be addicts otherwise of course), and aren't very happy about it.

> Here I am, having this largely pointless Hacker News conversation, instead of completing a Deep Learning course or something.

Yes, like that.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#272
post #93

The word missing from this discussion is "structural" - there are deep structural changes to how the job market and economy now works that limit the economic prospects of millennials (as a group) in ways that can't readily be overcome with thriftiness and hard work. Here's an excerpt of the article that really clarified this for me: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in…

Except they also had less. This is the ... I'm not sure of the right word, paradox? duality? ... anyway, the problem/benefit of globalisation, that it leads to cheaper stuff. We all have more today, even on less money. Thought experiment: ask yourself when it was better to be poor: 1950, or 2018. In 1950 you could... go to the library? In 2018, even the very poor likely have a mobile phone, the internet, a games cons…

But is this really a tradeoff we're making, or just two trends? It's pretty glib to say "well, inequality is worse, but that's the price of better technology"; inequality is worse and we have better technology. From 1880 to 1950 technology got better and inequality decreased. "Globalisation" becomes a grab-bag term for a lot of different trends and movements, and I wouldn't want to get paralyzed into saying "well, if we hired workers directly and not through contractors, we wouldn't be able to buy cheap consumer goods made in a newly industrialized China."

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#274
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He traded to get a 5-cent raise. A five cent raise in today's currency or back then? Per hour or week? Assuming it's hourly, if it's from "then" could you convert it to modern currency, or present it as an percentage increase so we can understand what kind of relative increase that was? Five cents sounds like nothing today, but 70 years ago it would have been significant.

According to https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm $0.05 in 1930 works out to $0.73 today. Figuring out a percentage increase is a bit complicated without knowing how much mod's grandfather earned. According to https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/spring/1... in the 1940 census average (yes, not median) annual income was $1368, which works out to $24,505 in 2018 dollars, or $12.25/hour assu…

This happened when my father worked at the same factory, so it was all the way in the 60s. My father passed up on the same job because he didn't think it was worth the raise. He's the one that tells the story--the entire thing was not noteworthy to my grandfather.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#275

American salaries are difficult to make sense of from a European perspective. The referenced average salary of $36,000/year for millennials with only a high-school diploma would be a normal entry-level salary for a software engineer in most of Western Europe, and a very good salary for experienced engineers in Eastern Europe. Tax burden is higher here as well, and while the cost of housing is exorbitant many parts of…

We don't have adequate public transportation (so car + car insurance + car maintenance). And our cities were never really designed to be walk-able or bike-able. While we have compulsory health insurance not dissimilar to the German system, most areas only have one or two providers (vs. 130 of Germany) whose prices have been going up like 30% every year. We still pay out of pocket for most medicine, dentistry, emergen…

All good points, but student loans are important too. Many people who went to college are paying between $200-$500/month for the foreseeable future, which is a large additional cost that seems less common for Europeans.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the article was attempting to take down that family, but even on that count I wasn't convinced. So they have a home in Massachusetts? That hardly makes them "rich". Nor is being able to hire a painting company the exclusive province of the wealthy. Perhaps pursuing FIRE is something only available to the upper middle class. That's an interesting argument, but not one put forward in the article. Furthermore, I…

Minor correction: They have a second house in Massachusetts, 1/2 a mile from MIT and 1 mile from Harvard, which they paid $460,000 for in 2012 ( https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/05/08/why-did-we-buy-our-ho... ) and now rent ( http://www.frugalwoods.com/2017/02/24/how-we-turned-our-city... ). (Whoa, their property manager is cheap.)

Less than 3% of gross for a single unit? That is a rate you’d expect for a 200 unit apartment complex.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still focusing your attention on supposed bad behavior of the rich rather than the wellbeing of the poor. If you think the poor need something, like say more funding for inner city schools, then say that and suggest a reasonable tax, perhaps a tax on luxury goods that would disproportionately affect the wealthy. Or if there's a specific bad behavior, such as pharmaceutical advertising, talk about that. But jus…

But rich people largely advocate against policies that favor poor people, like generous welfare and equitable taxation. Rich people advocate for policies that protect their status and the value of their properties and investments. They advocate against redistributive inheritance taxes, so that their own children continue to have enormous advantages over anyone else. They advocate policies that guarantee they can cont…

>But rich people largely advocate against policies that favor poor people, like generous welfare and equitable taxation. Rich people advocate for policies that protect their status and the value of their properties and investments.

Do you suppose it's possible for you to advocate for a specific amount of welfare that you feel is "generous" without attempting to villainize the very people you hope to pay for it?

>They advocate against redistributive inheritance taxes, so that their own children continue to have enormous advantages over anyone else.

First, one of the major motivations of achieving success in life is so that your children will be better off. So all you've established is that rich people are good parents. Secondly, you're still just upset that someone has a lot, rather than focusing on a specific problem that some group of poor people has. You're just hating the rich rather than showing an interest in helping the poor. Third, fortunes generally disappear after 3 generations, so it's not as if huge dynasties are being created that last forever. If you're rich, your grandkids get to go to a nice private school. That's pretty much it.

>They advocate policies that guarantee they can continue to extract wealth from rents rather than productive avtivities, dragging down the economic well being of all.

Yes, things like regulatory capture are a problem. I will hold up a sign and protest it alongside you. But do you see you you're STILL pointing to the "rich" rather than "bad policy?"

>And the rich are more likely to cheat on their taxes, try to bribe officials, or flat out disregard the law.

I've never met a person who worked for tips that didn't cheat on their taxes, have you? But more importantly, we're back at the same place. Rather than advocating for or against a specific policy, you're just slinging mud. You care more about saying mean things about rich people than you do about issues the poor might be facing.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a simpler test here. If you weren't sure what color your skin would be, what income bracket you'd be born into, what level of health you'd have at birth, or even what country you'd be born in, would you rather be born in 2018 or 1950?

I don't think it's that simple. When I was 15 without a doubt I would have said today. And now at 30 I'm pretty convinced that I would have liked 1950 better. Why ? Because the space and that I know that for 30+ years my life would consistently improve, maybe even 50+ or 60+, including an actual pension etc, even if I was born black. The basic standard would be different, but the constant improvement wouldn't. I mean…

71% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. You won't be getting a pension if you happen to be born black in South Africa in 1950. The world is still experiencing constant improvement. Every day across the world some 130k people achieve basic food security for the first time in their lives. The UN estimates extreme poverty will be gone across the globe by 2030. Not to mention improvements in healthcare, human rights, etc.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who's working two jobs would disagree with you.

Disagree with what? That there are 24 hours in a day? They choose to spend that time working 2 jobs. I've done the same in the past. I've decided between buying dinner or getting gas to drive to work to earn enough to cover the commute in the first place. Eventually you make decisions to get you out of that life and into a better one. There's luck involved sure, but I absolutely reject any excuses as if it's complete…

"They choose to spend that time working 2 jobs."

Because otherwise you'd say they'd "choose" to starve or be homeless?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree with what? That there are 24 hours in a day? They choose to spend that time working 2 jobs. I've done the same in the past. I've decided between buying dinner or getting gas to drive to work to earn enough to cover the commute in the first place. Eventually you make decisions to get you out of that life and into a better one. There's luck involved sure, but I absolutely reject any excuses as if it's complete…

I highly doubt you did those things you claim, because if you did you wouldn't say people "choose" to work two jobs and that it's just a matter of "deciding" to stop being poor.

You don't think choices matter in making your life better? This is just as sad as thinking that things can also change overnight. No you don't just stop being poor, you plan and get yourself out of it, over a decade if that's what it takes. Either way it's still up to you.
Post reply on HN